00:00 2020 seemed to be the year when pcr 00:02 tests became a household name 00:04 riding on the wave of corona mania prior 00:07 to this pcr tests were far less 00:09 well-known to the public and even much 00:10 of the medical community 00:12 had little engagement with them now it 00:15 seems 00:15 everyone has something to say about them 00:18 however 00:18 like my recent video exploring what 00:21 exactly is a covert 19 case 00:23 it is useful to go back to the basic 00:25 science to understand 00:26 what the foundations are so we can see 00:29 where it can lead 00:30 and often where it can go wrong 00:33 [Music] 00:36 so what is pcr pcr stands for polymerase 00:39 chain reaction 00:40 polymerase means an enzyme that 00:42 catalyses the formation 00:44 of a polymer or long chain molecule from 00:46 smaller units 00:48 in this case we are talking about dna 00:50 the molecule that carries the vital 00:51 genetic information for much of the life 00:53 on our planet 00:54 chain reaction means that the process is 00:57 carried out multiple times in sequence 00:59 this amplification process means a 01:01 minute sample of dna 01:03 is multiplied millions of times to 01:05 produce sufficient material to allow for 01:08 genetic 01:08 and molecular analysis the history of 01:11 pcr started in 1976 with the discovery 01:14 of tech dna polymerase 01:16 the enzyme was found in thermos 01:18 aquaticus a bacteria discovered 01:20 living in hot springs in yellowstone 01:22 national park because the enzyme could 01:24 withstand temperatures of 95 degrees 01:26 centigrade 01:27 it was a practical molecule for the 01:30 thermally dependent pcr process 01:32 prior to this fresh enzyme would have to 01:34 be added at every single cycle 01:36 things really took off in the 1980s when 01:38 carrie mullis realised how to put 01:40 tech polymerase to use and the enzyme 01:43 became commercially promoted 01:44 mullis was awarded the nobel prize in 01:46 chemistry in 1993 01:48 and is generally considered to be the 01:49 inventor of pcr i won’t get into all the 01:52 technical details of pcr 01:54 is for our purposes the principles and 01:56 application are more important than all 01:58 the biochemistry 01:59 however for those of you interested i’ll 02:01 include links with more detail below in 02:03 the description 02:05 in summary the process starts with 02:07 heating the sample of dna 02:09 this separates this double-stranded dna 02:11 into two pieces of single-stranded dna 02:13 primers are then added these are short 02:15 pieces of dna that are designed to flank 02:18 the target section of dna for 02:20 amplification usually two primers are 02:22 used 02:22 one to bind to each of the opposite 02:24 strands of the target dna section the 02:26 polymerase 02:27 then synthesizes a new dna strand that 02:30 is complementary to the target dna 02:32 section it builds this from nucleosides 02:34 present in the reaction mixture this 02:36 essentially completes a cycle and the 02:38 amount of target dna has been doubled 02:40 the cycle then starts again but this 02:42 time with around twice as much target 02:44 dna as the first time 02:46 the dna learning center had produced a 02:48 nice little video 02:50 outlining the pcr process in 3d which 02:52 you can check out in the link if you’re 02:54 interested 02:54 the cycle is typically repeated 25 to 40 02:57 times and it is important to realize the 02:59 exponential amplification of material 03:02 that occurs with these numbers for 03:03 example 03:04 at 40 cycles there would be around a 03:06 thousand 03:07 billion copies produced however tech dna 03:09 polymerase has a certain number 03:11 of mismatch errors so higher cycle 03:14 numbers 03:14 are more likely to produce inaccurate 03:17 results it is also important to realize 03:19 that a typical pcr test 03:20 only detects a small sequence of genetic 03:23 material it does not 03:25 detect anything close to the entire 03:27 genome of a purported organism 03:29 okay so we have a pretty neat way of 03:31 detecting tiny amounts of dna and 03:33 actually rna 03:34 as well what could possibly go wrong 03:37 well 03:37 quite a bit when the technique is used 03:39 to draw conclusions beyond that for 03:41 which it was designed 03:42 the inventor of pcr himself warned that 03:44 the pcr test 03:46 doesn’t tell you that you are sick these 03:49 tests cannot detect free 03:50 infectious viruses at all and as i’ve 03:53 discussed in previous videos the 03:55 manufacturers of pcr tests usually have 03:57 disclaimers stating that they are not 03:59 suitable for diagnostic purposes 04:01 and that they are non-specific let’s 04:04 explore some of the reasons why this is 04:06 so 04:06 firstly the very nature of the 04:08 biological samples is problematic 04:10 when a biological specimen for example a 04:12 nasal swab 04:13 is taken from a living host it contains 04:15 all sorts of things 04:17 including genetic material from any 04:19 number of microorganisms 04:21 humans are covered in billions of 04:23 microorganisms 04:24 most of them living in symbiosis with us 04:27 meaning they don’t 04:28 cause any harm or any disease in fact 04:30 many of them 04:31 are essential to our very existence 04:33 experiments with newborn animals have 04:35 revealed that attempting to raise them 04:37 in sterile conditions 04:39 leads to rapid death most microorganisms 04:42 found 04:42 in and around us have nothing to do with 04:44 illness so the mere apparent detection 04:47 of their prisons 04:48 is not a cause for alarm additionally as 04:50 carrie mullis pointed out 04:52 a pcr test does not detect an infectious 04:55 agent 04:56 this is because it is an indirect test 04:58 that only detects genetic fragments of 05:00 organisms 05:01 your body may have encountered a 05:02 potential pathogen that your immune 05:04 system rapidly destroyed 05:06 but the pcrt still detects remaining 05:09 fragments 05:10 it also needs to be established that a 05:12 genetic 05:13 sequence is absolutely specific to a 05:16 certain organism 05:17 and this is where diagnostic pcr can 05:19 fall apart 05:21 due to the almost incomprehensible 05:23 amount of genetic material on the planet 05:25 it is rash to assume total specificity 05:28 when it comes to particular sequences 05:31 what about science kobe 2 was it even 05:33 formally isolated prior to the 05:35 development of a pcr test 05:37 as you are aware we are currently 05:38 working on the third english edition of 05:40 virus mania 05:41 and this has been something we have been 05:43 looking into we 05:44 asked the groups that reported that they 05:47 had identified the novel virus by 05:49 electron micrograph 05:50 whether they had formally purified the 05:52 virus 05:53 the responses were all the same no 05:56 even michael law from the robert 05:58 institute wrote in an email that we 06:00 received on september 4th 06:01 2020 i am not aware of a paper 06:05 which purified isolated sars kobe 2. 06:08 hence it cannot be concluded with any 06:10 confidence that the so-called covert 19 06:12 pcrts were specifically calibrated 06:15 to a brand new viral pathogen the 06:17 research work of geneticist 06:18 barbara mcclintock is also with a 06:20 mention here in her nobel prize speech 06:23 from 1983 06:24 she reported that the genetic material 06:27 of living beings can constantly alter 06:29 by being hit by shocks these shocks can 06:32 be toxins 06:33 but can also be from other materials 06:35 that produce stress 06:37 in the test tube this in turn can lead 06:39 to the formation of 06:40 new genetic sequences which were 06:42 unverifiable both in vivo 06:44 and in vitro previously so this raises 06:46 another complicating factor 06:48 when considering where genetic sequences 06:51 are actually originating from 06:53 and how different conditions in life and 06:55 the lab 06:56 can change genetic expression but even 06:59 if the pcr test was known to be reliably 07:01 correlated to a particular organism 07:04 something more is required to prove 07:07 beyond 07:07 any doubt that the pcr can truly measure 07:10 if a person is affected by a 07:11 disease-causing microorganism 07:13 we need to do a blinded experiment and 07:16 you guessed it this hasn’t happened 07:18 to date it cannot be emphasized enough 07:21 how problematic it 07:22 is when a test has no connection to 07:25 actual illness 07:26 to put it in perspective there is little 07:28 doubt that some tests are very 07:30 useful and have strong relationships to 07:32 illness 07:33 for example if we have a patient who 07:34 reports fatigue 07:36 and a blood test reveals a hemoglobin of 07:38 65 grams per liter 07:39 we have a very strong indication that 07:41 they are anemic 07:42 and need further investigations and 07:44 treatment this is 07:46 not the case with many pcr tests where a 07:48 positive result 07:49 doesn’t tell you anything meaningful 07:52 about the test subject 07:53 and as we saw in 2020 even athletes at 07:56 the top of their game were testing 07:58 so-called positive with the covered pcr 08:00 tests 08:01 to go back to our hemoglobin example we 08:03 would not expect ronaldo to make it 08:05 through the first 08:06 10 minutes of the game if his hemoglobin 08:09 was 65 08:10 so i’m sure the soccer star would have 08:12 much more confidence in this test 08:15 pcr tests may be qualitative or 08:17 quantitative 08:18 essentially qualitative pcr is the 08:21 traditional technique which is used to 08:23 decide whether a dna fragment is present 08:26 or not whereas quantitative pcr or qpcr 08:30 is used to determine how much of the dna 08:32 fragment is present in the sample 08:34 there has been confusion with regards to 08:36 this as the product descriptions of the 08:38 rtq pcr 08:40 tests for science kobe 2 state they are 08:42 qualitative tests 08:43 contrary to the fact that the q and q 08:46 pcr stands for quantitative 08:48 in fact one of my co-authors thorsten 08:50 engelbrecht applied pressure to the 08:52 charity 08:52 with regards to the drawston corman pcr 08:55 test and received 08:56 the following response if real-time 08:59 rt-pcr is involved 09:01 to the knowledge of the charity in most 09:03 cases these are 09:04 limited to qualitative detection 09:08 clear as mud in any case as i’ve 09:10 previously discussed 09:12 in this video for some reason the fda 09:15 and other health authorities have failed 09:17 to collect any significant data on pcr 09:20 cycle thresholds 09:21 despite dr thatchy saying it was an 09:23 important value for the clinician to 09:25 consider 09:26 check out that video for more about 09:27 cycle thresholds 09:29 with regards to sar’s kobe 2 there is an 09:31 additional issue 09:33 in that the target genetic material is 09:35 for a presumed 09:36 rna virus this means that before 09:39 starting the actual pcr process the 09:41 target 09:41 rna must be converted to complementary 09:44 dna with the enzyme 09:46 reverse transcriptase professor of 09:48 molecular medicine 09:49 stephen a bustin pointed to the problem 09:51 that in the course of this 09:53 conversion process the amount of dna 09:55 obtained with the same rna-based 09:57 material 09:58 can vary widely even by a factor of 10 10:02 so this initial step can also cause 10:04 variation in whether the subsequent pcr 10:06 test is considered positive or not 10:08 interestingly bustin who helped develop 10:10 the miqe guidelines 10:12 to standardize pcr protocols had the 10:15 following to say about coburn 19 pcr 10:17 tests 10:18 we demonstrate that elementary protocol 10:20 errors and appropriate data analysis and 10:23 inadequate 10:23 reporting continue to be rife and 10:26 conclude that the majority of published 10:28 rt 10:28 qpcr data are likely to represent 10:31 technical 10:32 noise in other words a total mess 10:35 so why are pcr tests being promoted as 10:38 fit for purpose for cobit 19 10:40 it’s hard to know all the reasons but 10:42 there are huge profits to be made and 10:44 advancements of certain agendas 10:46 there is also likely to be many 10:48 conflicts of interest by those with 10:50 links to political power 10:51 and public funds for their work a viewer 10:54 sent me an article that was written by a 10:56 new zealand scientist called 10:58 susie wiles she states there was a 11:01 misinformation video about pcr tests 11:03 circulating 11:04 new zealand is a small place so 11:06 presumably this is one of mine 11:10 unfortunately she doesn’t exactly 11:11 explain which part is wrong 11:13 only that it is chock-full of false 11:15 information 11:16 goodness me what a highly scientific 11:19 rebuttal 11:20 firstly it seems that the spin-off 11:21 website has received 222 thousand 11:24 dollars in funds from creative new 11:26 zealand 11:26 which is a division of the new zealand 11:28 government so perhaps the nature of the 11:30 article 11:31 is not that surprising anyway let’s have 11:34 a look at where susie goes astray and 11:36 how she has cut 11:37 more than a few corners with her claims 11:40 the pcr 11:41 looks for specific genetic sequences 11:43 that are only found 11:44 in the sars kobe 2 virus as we’ve 11:47 discussed this is a dubious claim 11:49 as the virus was never fully isolated 11:52 and purified 11:53 prior to the development of the pcr test 11:55 it also suggests that we have sequenced 11:57 the genomes of all significant organisms 12:00 on the planet 12:01 and know about every change in genetic 12:03 expression as per barbara mcclintock’s 12:04 work 12:05 the manufacturers of the pcrt certainly 12:07 don’t share susie’s enthusiasm and in 12:10 fact include disclaimers like 12:12 this product is for research use only 12:14 and is not intended for diagnostic use 12:17 and may react to other organisms that 12:19 makes it very suitable as a screening 12:21 tool as it has such a low false positive 12:24 rate 12:24 people are highly unlikely to test 12:26 positive unless the virus is present in 12:28 the sample 12:30 i can only view this as confused or 12:32 disingenuous 12:33 where has it been established that it is 12:35 a suitable screening tool 12:37 when it wasn’t even established as a 12:38 suitable diagnostic tool 12:40 the corman drosten paper that triggered 12:42 the worldwide promotion of covert pcr 12:44 tests 12:45 never established how it should be 12:47 applied in clinical use 12:48 and this is one of the many reasons why 12:51 a consortium of scientists have 12:52 requested its retraction 12:54 it is also unsound medical practice to 12:56 claim that copit19 12:58 is diagnosed by a pcr test and that the 13:00 definition of covert 19 is a positive 13:03 pcr test 13:04 as a standalone as i’ve discussed in 13:06 previous videos there can be no 13:08 estimate of false positive rates as 13:10 there is nothing to compare it to 13:13 no gold standard she can only be 13:15 referring to the false positive rate in 13:17 the lab setting with control samples 13:20 not real world application in the 13:22 community i’ve talked about the gross 13:24 limitations of this 13:25 in my fact-checking video we know this 13:27 is true from all the thousands of 13:29 negative tests we’ve seen here in new 13:31 zealand 13:32 this bizarre statement is a complete 13:35 non-sequitur 13:36 in no way establishes the suitability of 13:38 a test 13:39 it tells us nothing about the status of 13:41 the people being tested 13:43 there have been no blinded trials to 13:45 establish the validity of the test 13:47 for actual illness anyway you can see 13:50 that she is attempting to build the case 13:52 for pcr tests but already 13:54 the foundations are inadequate some of 13:56 the article is fine and talks about 13:58 cycle thresholds 13:59 but then she gets into hypotheticals and 14:02 a 14:03 test trace isolate mantra public 14:05 education campaign 14:07 perhaps to her it seems that mass 14:08 testing can only be beneficial 14:10 but this ignores the huge costs that 14:13 include a 14:14 financial costs an official information 14:16 act request in new zealand a country of 14:18 5 million people 14:19 revealed 74 million in pcr swab and lab 14:23 costs alone 14:24 over a mere six week period the total 14:26 cost will be 14:27 far in excess of this and be 14:29 psychological and social costs to people 14:31 who believe that they are actually ill 14:33 and isolate because of a positive test 14:35 result however most conspicuous 14:38 by its absence in the article is where 14:40 it was established that positive pcr 14:42 test results have anything to do with 14:44 illness she completely misses this 14:47 crucial point 14:48 and this is not surprising because as i 14:50 discussed in my video what is a copper 14:51 19 case 14:52 it has never been established as my 14:55 co-author and season campaigner class 14:57 coonline would say 14:58 she has been swept up in the pcr 15:00 pandemic 15:01 unfortunately scientists like susie seem 15:03 to have become detached 15:05 from the very nature of human health as 15:07 they focus 15:08 on molecular test results and top-down 15:10 political policies 15:12 interestingly some of the authorities 15:14 that heavily promoted the covert pcr 15:16 tests 15:17 are now softening their positions with a 15:20 european court declaring the tests 15:22 not fit for purpose and potential 15:24 lawsuits brewing 15:25 last month the who quietly issued a 15:28 statement suggesting 15:30 more caution with so-called positive 15:32 tests 15:33 could this be the beginning of a gradual 15:35 back down from unsound science 15:37 over a decade before pcr tests appeared 15:39 on the scene 15:40 noble laureate for medicine sir frank 15:43 mcfarlane burnett 15:44 made a precise warning by the beginning 15:47 of the 1970s he had become very 15:50 skeptical about 15:51 the usefulness of molecular biology 15:53 especially because of the impossible 15:55 complexity 15:56 of living structures and particularly of 15:58 the informational machinery of the cell 16:01 certainly molecular biologists are 16:03 rightly proud of their achievements 16:05 and equally rightly feel that they have 16:07 won the right to go on with their 16:08 research 16:09 but their money comes from politicians 16:12 bankers 16:12 foundations who are not capable of 16:15 recognising the nature of a scientist’s 16:17 attitude to science 16:19 and who still feel as i felt myself 30 16:21 years ago that medical research is 16:23 concerned only 16:24 in preventing or curing human disease so 16:27 our scientists say what is expected of 16:28 them 16:29 their grants are renewed and both sides 16:31 are uneasily aware that it has all been 16:34 a dishonest piece of play acting 16:36 but then most public functions are as a 16:39 quick comment i can also say that when 16:41 pcr tests are used out of context 16:44 they can also appear to provide evidence 16:46 of a new 16:47 strain of a virus again this indirect 16:50 method does not suffice 16:51 and full evidence of the virus needs to 16:53 be carried out with formal purification 16:55 and isolation as well as the 16:57 characterization of the full genome 16:59 and shell and if there is evidence of 17:01 any new strain 17:02 we still need evidence that it poses any 17:05 threat to humans 17:06 as its mere detection is no reason to 17:08 cause panic 17:10 in summary i’m not saying that there is 17:12 no use for pcr tests 17:13 they are an incredible tool of human 17:16 discovery 17:17 and have a vital role in scientific 17:19 research as well as genetic 17:21 and forensic medicine however their use 17:23 with regards to infection diagnostics 17:25 has generally been overplayed in recent 17:28 years 17:28 and i suspect 2020 will be viewed as the 17:31 year in which they went completely 17:33 out of control to help sustain my 17:36 channel in this time of censorship 17:38 please support my work on subscribe star 17:40 link is in the description
Mypost NZ
