Dr Jack, you’re the perfect person to ask. I have a couple questions, if you’re willing, on pcr. I sent you a free book, so please forgive me if they are silly/dumb questions from a nurse. I tend to lean toward Mullis’ own words that it is not for clinical diagnostics so doubt usefulness, period. But, 1. what methods do you want them to publish that would specifically confirm, or certainly call into question, their findings? (I am trying to educate myself) 2. is anything beyond 16-20 or so cycles total hogwash regardless of setting or field of study? I ask because new labs are making bank, and (I wonder) fraudulently?, on pcr for all kinds of testing now.. swabs for wounds, urine, etc. I’ve long suspected. For example, a ‘clinical’ lab in widespread use now runs their urine for ‘culture’ at 40 cycles.
Use of ANY universal cycle threshold is BOGUS. Negative control samples per test would make the test quantitative and the null value would be known and the standard method of calculating deltadeltaCt. Find my videos on the on Unbreaking Science very early on in 2020. This is elementary. See the monkeypox qRT-PCR kits for reference as look at 1. Whether a covid pcr kit has a negative control and 2. Whether the primers have been updated to match current strains.
Her conflict of interest tells us she works in the field and makes me think she knows her stuff.
Many of the primers for PCR and lateral flow come from labs in China with management beholden to who knows where. Even if the labs were to follow GOOD practice the results could be rubbish if the reagents were compromised. I would like to see baseline/null/challenge results for all the reagents to see if they are sensitive to other random stuff even at low threasholds.
Dr Jack, you’re the perfect person to ask. I have a couple questions, if you’re willing, on pcr. I sent you a free book, so please forgive me if they are silly/dumb questions from a nurse. I tend to lean toward Mullis’ own words that it is not for clinical diagnostics so doubt usefulness, period. But, 1. what methods do you want them to publish that would specifically confirm, or certainly call into question, their findings? (I am trying to educate myself) 2. is anything beyond 16-20 or so cycles total hogwash regardless of setting or field of study? I ask because new labs are making bank, and (I wonder) fraudulently?, on pcr for all kinds of testing now.. swabs for wounds, urine, etc. I’ve long suspected. For example, a ‘clinical’ lab in widespread use now runs their urine for ‘culture’ at 40 cycles.
Use of ANY universal cycle threshold is BOGUS. Negative control samples per test would make the test quantitative and the null value would be known and the standard method of calculating deltadeltaCt. Find my videos on the on Unbreaking Science very early on in 2020. This is elementary. See the monkeypox qRT-PCR kits for reference as look at 1. Whether a covid pcr kit has a negative control and 2. Whether the primers have been updated to match current strains.
Thank you! Will look for the video. This was very helpful.
Her conflict of interest tells us she works in the field and makes me think she knows her stuff.
Many of the primers for PCR and lateral flow come from labs in China with management beholden to who knows where. Even if the labs were to follow GOOD practice the results could be rubbish if the reagents were compromised. I would like to see baseline/null/challenge results for all the reagents to see if they are sensitive to other random stuff even at low threasholds.