I really appreciate your deep-dive into all of this. Before I found the "no virus" community last summer, my intuition had been questioning the narrative since April 2020. It just didn't make sense to me Nature would be trying to kill us. I'm grateful for the explanations and transparency you're putting forth.
Just trying to get my head around this (and sorry it might be a stupid question) - but what exactly is that "noise"?
Is that group of lower messy lines, an indication of the wells where amplification of the target sequence is taking place just not to the the extent deemed to indicate a positive result ?
That is their description of noise…. Yet this rejection by threshold is before amplification so would be limiting all but the strongest signals or vice versa.
But they are running the reactions and then sifting / cleaning up the data afterwards right? Because on the plot graphs you can see the "noise" takes place in the "early cycles", as he says in the video? So amplification has already taken place but all noise prior to the amplification signal becoming exponential they subtract from the data?
In that Pic 1 in the link thread, the "noise" carries on past the amplification signal becoming exponential, also threshold is set really low? So that Pic shows what might happen if those results are not substantial "subtracted" /rejected?
I couldn't tell you the exact algorithm used to smooth and reject the data because I don't know. The post of the lab technician suggests his manager has it “SET” at a low threshold i.e to in this case accept the information as it is run.
There are even more parameters of camera calibration that you can modify even further but would have to be very intentional…
The point is that you Don't see the smoothed data, it processes it and cuts it out AND changes the curves as shown in the video.
I have read a PCR software manual and it appears the setting of baseline and threshold are done in the data analysis phase following data acquisition from the amplification experiment. I would expect the raw data remains available and the data could be re-processed if desired. It would be interesting to see if clients have access to the raw data files.
"Since the dye binds to all amplified pcr products indiscriminately, artifacts such as those resulting from primer-dimers or non-specific binding of the primers may aslo contribute to overall fluorescence." For these purposes, the melting curve is used to solve the problem.
Great post Jamie. The plot thickens and is, in fact, worse than we previously thought (over amplified CT’s). Between this and no proof of isolation what’s left for the field of virology?
Standards, levels and measured values are defined for objects that have never been levelled, standardised or measured because it has simply not been possible to differentiate between the objects sought in the chaos of samples that have been used up to now. Due to a lack of traceability and a lack of possibility, as Roger Andoh has already stated in writing. A totally insane cycle of self-affirmation around an empty centre that is only supported by absurdly sophisticated techniques.
Kary Mullis was QUITE CLEAR about what the PCR was for. He has been smeared and smeared and smeared, and because he's DEAD, almost surely "offed," he can't defend himself... So, I'm defending him. He was a Good Guy, on the right side.
And just for the record, it's a logical fallacy, called "ad hominem," to attack the person who takes a different side of an argument, as if the argument can be won by pretending the other debater is somehow Not Okay, as in stupid, or a "hero worshipper." It's a coward's way of disagreeing.
Stick to the actual INFORMATION, not whether your opponent is "okay" with you or not. smh
As you know Pam, and as I have stated NUMEROUS times: I SAW and HEARD MULLIS say those things *IN PERSON*! Once again -and for the benefit of those with reading comprehension difficulties- I was not only ACTUALLY PRESENT AT THAT ACTUAL EVENT when Mullis MADE those comments, I also helped to PRODUCE THAT FREAKIN' SEMINAR! And it was WAY BACK in 1997! However, suffice it to say, Mullis did NOT say what "Word Herder" THINKS he said!! https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage
I have listened to the man himself, as in, Mullis. I’ve seen at least two or three videos he made, interviews, I heard them back in 2020, or 2021. I trust HIM to tell us what his invention was for, and I don’t really CARE what other people say, unless they agree with HIM. Does that make sense? The horse’s mouth, as it were. There’s just soooo much stuff to learn, I don’t need to keep re-hashing what the inventor himself has said about the PCR. Onward.
The PCR is not a "test." It's ludicrous that they ("They") are still using it!!
It was only ever meant for amplification, and I feel pretty confident that because Kerry Mullis, the inventor of the PCR, was loud about this, and VERY loud about how stupid Fauci is, they offed him to get him out of the way (died of a heart attack [the CIA's FAVORITE means of taking people out] in September 2019, right before the EVENT 201...)
If your post says this, I will admit I only scanned it very very quickly, as I have so little time to get through my email, usually, these days... Hopefully soon my life will go back to "normal"! ha hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa woof!
It'll have to be another day. I use the library computers and they're closing now. I'll keep the email to remind me. If you're giving me a link that is going to trash Mr. Mullis, tho, I can't promise I'll bother to respond. ;)
I've worked as an analytical chemist for over 40 years. My areas of expertise are liquid chromatography and gas chromatography. I've also used many forms of spectroscopy. Noise is always present in a measurement system and evaluation of data must include assessment of baseline noise and setting of thresholds to ensure analytical signals are significantly above the baseline noise. Generally, a signal-to-noise ratio of 3 is considered a limit of detection and a signal-to-noise ratio of 10 is considered limit of quantitation. Analytical methods for measurement of trace-level impurities often include a low-level standard for verifying the system meets the required signal-to-noise requirements for each analysis. If threshold is set at an unreasonably high level the low-level standards will not be detected and system suitability will fail.
Jamie says: "Note that he talks about "Noise". This is just a word used for any data that these "scientists" WANT to reject." This is false. Noise is inherent in measurement systems and any proper data treatment must evaluate the noise level and establish a threshold to exclude the noise.
Can an improperly set threshold result in rejecting legitimate signals? Yes, the analyst must be trained to competently use the software and laboratory management must review results to ensure adherence to established standards.
I read the Reddit thread. The comments virtually all agree that the subject laboratory is making fundamental errors in data analysis. The commenters also know there is a right way to process the data and get reliable, consistent results.
I read Tam’s first critique. He points out absurdity after absurdity in their abundantly flawed processes. It reminds me of how “viruses” are proven to exist. It’s essentially the same tactic. I agree with Tam.
Thanks for the correction! I have since read a bit more from her writings. Brilliant mind and critical thinker.
I love delving into these matters because once I have seen the lies and the results of those lies on humanity, I am not willing to participate in that process any longer.
The GMO seeds? Looks like they likely used tge tried and true seed selection method to find seeds that could withstand heavy poisoning with their chemicals, claim that farmers and growers usurped their patents by lying for the purpose of controlling seeds worldwide. That was Monsanto’s goal, after all. And what better way to do this than by deception? And who were the Monsantos? That’s another interesting bit of background.
Re GMO seeds, the ones supposed to be resilient to pesticides - yeah agreed 100%, they probably attempted to grow a whole bunch of certain seeds that were continously drenched in their poisons and those plants that survived the onslaught they bred with , until they had a strong cultivars.
Controlling what people eat seems to be half the battle won. By having control over the food people consume you can create population that is mostly sick, slow and uninspired in one generation.
I’m curious what you make of Jamie’s previous article on PCR controls
In the sense that, surely the positive control would have a fixed / standardised threshold adjustment? If the concentration and the threshold adjustment for the positive control is not standardised (assuming the same equipment)
Surely, one can alter the concentration, and threshold adjustment for the positive control to a point where they bias the likelihood of any test samples ‘appearing positive’
Thank you, Dan, for the question. I don't have working knowledge of PCR but I deal with noise and thresholds on a daily basis. I've read some PCR manufacturer's information to gain an understanding of the basic concepts. Noise is usually evaluated using the data from the early part of the amplification cycles where there is usually no valid signal. A threshold is set using a multiplier times the standard deviation of the measurements in the noise interval. This threshold would be independent of the response of the positive control.
The PCR is an AMPLIFIER, not a finder of any disease. It was misused from the get-go, Mullis smeared, and I see much continuing abuse of the PCR AND the inventor of it. As someone who has been unfairly and wrongly smeared, I am sensitive to Mullis' predicament, even if he is dead.
Let's assume their PCR testing procedure, as outlined in the video, is valid for the sake of argument. They imply the automatic noise filtering via software is unreliable, and has to be inspected and adjusted manually.
So how could millions upon millions of rapid PCR tests be carried out so fast? There were many "positive" results, each must have been tested individually. The capacity to properly review even a small fraction of the results has surely never existed. And these results were the primary evidence of the "pandemic".
I really appreciate your deep-dive into all of this. Before I found the "no virus" community last summer, my intuition had been questioning the narrative since April 2020. It just didn't make sense to me Nature would be trying to kill us. I'm grateful for the explanations and transparency you're putting forth.
Follow that good intuition of yours! And stick with peeps like Jaime. ^_^
Thank you for your kind words of support Zenle.
Grotesque.
The white lab coats should be converted as quickly as possible into something that really benefits us all: straitjackets
Indeed!
It seems that lab coats actually ARE straightjackets, eh? smdh
Soylent Green?
Just trying to get my head around this (and sorry it might be a stupid question) - but what exactly is that "noise"?
Is that group of lower messy lines, an indication of the wells where amplification of the target sequence is taking place just not to the the extent deemed to indicate a positive result ?
That is their description of noise…. Yet this rejection by threshold is before amplification so would be limiting all but the strongest signals or vice versa.
OK great thanks.
But they are running the reactions and then sifting / cleaning up the data afterwards right? Because on the plot graphs you can see the "noise" takes place in the "early cycles", as he says in the video? So amplification has already taken place but all noise prior to the amplification signal becoming exponential they subtract from the data?
In that Pic 1 in the link thread, the "noise" carries on past the amplification signal becoming exponential, also threshold is set really low? So that Pic shows what might happen if those results are not substantial "subtracted" /rejected?
Am I understanding this correctly?
I couldn't tell you the exact algorithm used to smooth and reject the data because I don't know. The post of the lab technician suggests his manager has it “SET” at a low threshold i.e to in this case accept the information as it is run.
There are even more parameters of camera calibration that you can modify even further but would have to be very intentional…
The point is that you Don't see the smoothed data, it processes it and cuts it out AND changes the curves as shown in the video.
I have read a PCR software manual and it appears the setting of baseline and threshold are done in the data analysis phase following data acquisition from the amplification experiment. I would expect the raw data remains available and the data could be re-processed if desired. It would be interesting to see if clients have access to the raw data files.
“It would be interesting to see if clients have access to the raw data files”…..lol
Such important information.
PCR = Pipette, Cry, Repeat.
https://www.reddit.com/r/labrats/comments/15oqeg2/my_pcr_is_not_working_i_want_to_die/
Lol, love the comment below saying the quiet part put loud “PCR is part witchcraft”
The winner. The most honest comment :))
"Since the dye binds to all amplified pcr products indiscriminately, artifacts such as those resulting from primer-dimers or non-specific binding of the primers may aslo contribute to overall fluorescence." For these purposes, the melting curve is used to solve the problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPg9-dw33w
Gotta love that ad Hoc rescue device lol
Great post Jamie. The plot thickens and is, in fact, worse than we previously thought (over amplified CT’s). Between this and no proof of isolation what’s left for the field of virology?
Not alot… hanging by a thread lol
Standards, levels and measured values are defined for objects that have never been levelled, standardised or measured because it has simply not been possible to differentiate between the objects sought in the chaos of samples that have been used up to now. Due to a lack of traceability and a lack of possibility, as Roger Andoh has already stated in writing. A totally insane cycle of self-affirmation around an empty centre that is only supported by absurdly sophisticated techniques.
No surprises They chose that tool... The ghastly psychopaths in control who brought Us the plannedemic. For profit/control.
Money Motivates the Most Marvelous Manifestations! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/money-motivates-the-most-marvelous
The Manager thinks like Kary Mullis: If you do it "right" you can find everything. 😁😂
You can find all of Kary's “latent viruses” that cause AIDS.
Kary Mullis was QUITE CLEAR about what the PCR was for. He has been smeared and smeared and smeared, and because he's DEAD, almost surely "offed," he can't defend himself... So, I'm defending him. He was a Good Guy, on the right side.
https://open.substack.com/pub/longtimedissident/p/the-mullis-mirage?r=oa0v9&utm_medium=ios
You might want to reconsider your hero worship of Kary Mullis.
And just for the record, it's a logical fallacy, called "ad hominem," to attack the person who takes a different side of an argument, as if the argument can be won by pretending the other debater is somehow Not Okay, as in stupid, or a "hero worshipper." It's a coward's way of disagreeing.
Stick to the actual INFORMATION, not whether your opponent is "okay" with you or not. smh
Rod Knoll was there with Mullis in the old AIDS dissident movement. Maybe take a look at his SS. He has many articles.
As you know Pam, and as I have stated NUMEROUS times: I SAW and HEARD MULLIS say those things *IN PERSON*! Once again -and for the benefit of those with reading comprehension difficulties- I was not only ACTUALLY PRESENT AT THAT ACTUAL EVENT when Mullis MADE those comments, I also helped to PRODUCE THAT FREAKIN' SEMINAR! And it was WAY BACK in 1997! However, suffice it to say, Mullis did NOT say what "Word Herder" THINKS he said!! https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage
I try to not ever call names, but word herder gets the prize for the biggest idiot comments on SS I’ve seen in awhile.
Thank you as always, Pamela! As the expression goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"!
I have listened to the man himself, as in, Mullis. I’ve seen at least two or three videos he made, interviews, I heard them back in 2020, or 2021. I trust HIM to tell us what his invention was for, and I don’t really CARE what other people say, unless they agree with HIM. Does that make sense? The horse’s mouth, as it were. There’s just soooo much stuff to learn, I don’t need to keep re-hashing what the inventor himself has said about the PCR. Onward.
"Hero worship"?
So you think ONE article by someone on SS is THE Truth, I guess.
To each their own, but I have no need to read trashing of dead guys who were killed and then maligned to advance a "cause," ie, lies and subterfuge.
The PCR is not a "test." It's ludicrous that they ("They") are still using it!!
It was only ever meant for amplification, and I feel pretty confident that because Kerry Mullis, the inventor of the PCR, was loud about this, and VERY loud about how stupid Fauci is, they offed him to get him out of the way (died of a heart attack [the CIA's FAVORITE means of taking people out] in September 2019, right before the EVENT 201...)
If your post says this, I will admit I only scanned it very very quickly, as I have so little time to get through my email, usually, these days... Hopefully soon my life will go back to "normal"! ha hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa woof!
Anyway, keep up the good work, Jamie! ^_^ xo
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/
I think you might find this informative and interesting.
Okay, so at first glance it LOOKS LIKE it's on the up and up, but it isn't, and has NEVER been, a "diagnostic" tool. So I stopped reading at that.
Amplification, yes, DIAGOSTIC, NO.
I am absolutely sure of this, per the inventor, Kerry Mullis-- I saw a video, actually, more than one, before he died, where he made this quite clear.
It'll have to be another day. I use the library computers and they're closing now. I'll keep the email to remind me. If you're giving me a link that is going to trash Mr. Mullis, tho, I can't promise I'll bother to respond. ;)
I've worked as an analytical chemist for over 40 years. My areas of expertise are liquid chromatography and gas chromatography. I've also used many forms of spectroscopy. Noise is always present in a measurement system and evaluation of data must include assessment of baseline noise and setting of thresholds to ensure analytical signals are significantly above the baseline noise. Generally, a signal-to-noise ratio of 3 is considered a limit of detection and a signal-to-noise ratio of 10 is considered limit of quantitation. Analytical methods for measurement of trace-level impurities often include a low-level standard for verifying the system meets the required signal-to-noise requirements for each analysis. If threshold is set at an unreasonably high level the low-level standards will not be detected and system suitability will fail.
Jamie says: "Note that he talks about "Noise". This is just a word used for any data that these "scientists" WANT to reject." This is false. Noise is inherent in measurement systems and any proper data treatment must evaluate the noise level and establish a threshold to exclude the noise.
Can an improperly set threshold result in rejecting legitimate signals? Yes, the analyst must be trained to competently use the software and laboratory management must review results to ensure adherence to established standards.
I read the Reddit thread. The comments virtually all agree that the subject laboratory is making fundamental errors in data analysis. The commenters also know there is a right way to process the data and get reliable, consistent results.
Marty says : This is false, Noise is inherent in measurement systems...
That scientists want to reject.
My statement stands true.
All of these Biochemical indications are rubbish and amount to no much more than tea leaf readings with a great story to go with.
I read Tam’s first critique. He points out absurdity after absurdity in their abundantly flawed processes. It reminds me of how “viruses” are proven to exist. It’s essentially the same tactic. I agree with Tam.
Tam's a she, Tamara 😉.
Thanks for the correction! I have since read a bit more from her writings. Brilliant mind and critical thinker.
I love delving into these matters because once I have seen the lies and the results of those lies on humanity, I am not willing to participate in that process any longer.
The GMO seeds? Looks like they likely used tge tried and true seed selection method to find seeds that could withstand heavy poisoning with their chemicals, claim that farmers and growers usurped their patents by lying for the purpose of controlling seeds worldwide. That was Monsanto’s goal, after all. And what better way to do this than by deception? And who were the Monsantos? That’s another interesting bit of background.
No problem, I am a big fan of her's.
Re GMO seeds, the ones supposed to be resilient to pesticides - yeah agreed 100%, they probably attempted to grow a whole bunch of certain seeds that were continously drenched in their poisons and those plants that survived the onslaught they bred with , until they had a strong cultivars.
Controlling what people eat seems to be half the battle won. By having control over the food people consume you can create population that is mostly sick, slow and uninspired in one generation.
I’m curious what you make of Jamie’s previous article on PCR controls
In the sense that, surely the positive control would have a fixed / standardised threshold adjustment? If the concentration and the threshold adjustment for the positive control is not standardised (assuming the same equipment)
Surely, one can alter the concentration, and threshold adjustment for the positive control to a point where they bias the likelihood of any test samples ‘appearing positive’
Interested to hear your thoughts?
Thank you, Dan, for the question. I don't have working knowledge of PCR but I deal with noise and thresholds on a daily basis. I've read some PCR manufacturer's information to gain an understanding of the basic concepts. Noise is usually evaluated using the data from the early part of the amplification cycles where there is usually no valid signal. A threshold is set using a multiplier times the standard deviation of the measurements in the noise interval. This threshold would be independent of the response of the positive control.
The PCR is an AMPLIFIER, not a finder of any disease. It was misused from the get-go, Mullis smeared, and I see much continuing abuse of the PCR AND the inventor of it. As someone who has been unfairly and wrongly smeared, I am sensitive to Mullis' predicament, even if he is dead.
Thanks.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the testing process.
Let's assume their PCR testing procedure, as outlined in the video, is valid for the sake of argument. They imply the automatic noise filtering via software is unreliable, and has to be inspected and adjusted manually.
So how could millions upon millions of rapid PCR tests be carried out so fast? There were many "positive" results, each must have been tested individually. The capacity to properly review even a small fraction of the results has surely never existed. And these results were the primary evidence of the "pandemic".
Correct... that is why they "set and forget" when they have the results they want to see.
G.I.G.O.
https://substack.com/@researchintegrity/note/c-68103872?r=451xdo