Read on Twitter
Someone has reading comprehension problems.
Where does our document say this?
Starting off with a straw man is a sign of deception.
We are quite clear, that they have no clue what their primers detect as the methods produce primer dimers.
Where does our document say this?
Starting off with a straw man is a sign of deception.
We are quite clear, that they have no clue what their primers detect as the methods produce primer dimers.
We didnât argue that. Your paper does and it has been confirmed in a previous erratum that currently decorates your manuscript.
Pillonel et al.
Pillonel et al.
This one is pure gold.
She cites a paper that advises against doing the exact things she did in her primers.
Thatâs right. You should screen for primer dimers before torturing the public with such arrogance and incompetence.
She cites a paper that advises against doing the exact things she did in her primers.
Thatâs right. You should screen for primer dimers before torturing the public with such arrogance and incompetence.
This PCR 101...
Itâs free software online. Takes 5 minutes.
When you fumble this bad, itâs best you pull out some bioinformatics squid ink and deflect from the poor design by talking about your sexy sequencing work that was omitted from the manuscript. https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1331564279254933507
Itâs free software online. Takes 5 minutes.
When you fumble this bad, itâs best you pull out some bioinformatics squid ink and deflect from the poor design by talking about your sexy sequencing work that was omitted from the manuscript. https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1331564279254933507
Here is the squid ink.
If you have that much BIFX capacity but canât run a primer dimer screen, you are just reckless glory hunting scientists trying to be first as opposed to being accurate. In clinical work rammed through the WHO for human testing, this is dangerous.
If you have that much BIFX capacity but canât run a primer dimer screen, you are just reckless glory hunting scientists trying to be first as opposed to being accurate. In clinical work rammed through the WHO for human testing, this is dangerous.
I completely understand using synthetic DNA when Virus is hard to access. I donât agree with putting out a qPCR assay for detection of SARs-CoV-2 with zero guidance on the CQ and how that Cq correlates with PFUs.
Jaafar et al did a great job at this.
Jaafar et al did a great job at this.
One of the reasons itâs important to test live virus is that the virus has splicing of a 70bp leader sequence when generating subgenomic RNA.
Kim et al describes this and the highly variable RNA expression at the 3â end of the virus. Synthetic standards donât replicate this. https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1327113537819435008
Kim et al describes this and the highly variable RNA expression at the 3â end of the virus. Synthetic standards donât replicate this. https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1327113537819435008
So in summary, there has been zero credible refutation of the flaws we present in the CD assay.
I would caution any assumption that these flaws produce exclusively false positives. There is evidence in the literature they suffer from False negatives as a result of the dimers.
I would caution any assumption that these flaws produce exclusively false positives. There is evidence in the literature they suffer from False negatives as a result of the dimers.
This dimer screen is a 20 min test on an agilent bioanalyzer.
Skipped and jammed through a shady peer review with lab testing rev COI apparent.
Low Temp annealing/high cycles
High [primer] [Mg] [dNTPs]
Degenerate primers
Not specific
No CQ curve
Your freedom deserves better.
Skipped and jammed through a shady peer review with lab testing rev COI apparent.
Low Temp annealing/high cycles
High [primer] [Mg] [dNTPs]
Degenerate primers
Not specific
No CQ curve
Your freedom deserves better.
Why so upset over primer designs?
Medical testing of asymptomatic people requires informed consent.
These tests are needed for freedom. They are coerced not consensual.
Are you ever given the CQ value or the primers used for your quarantest?
They have hijacked the term âcaseâ
Medical testing of asymptomatic people requires informed consent.
These tests are needed for freedom. They are coerced not consensual.
Are you ever given the CQ value or the primers used for your quarantest?
They have hijacked the term âcaseâ
Cases need to have symptoms or at the very least be able to detect infectiousness to justify a quarantine.
Can the CD primer set discern infectiousness?
Liotti et al shows 77 days qPCR+vity.
7-10 days infectious.
Most people will be falsely quarantined.
Thatâs the âcaseâ FPR
Can the CD primer set discern infectiousness?
Liotti et al shows 77 days qPCR+vity.
7-10 days infectious.
Most people will be falsely quarantined.
Thatâs the âcaseâ FPR
And it gets worse.
As the virus goes endemic and reinfections occur
(yes they are frequent with HCoVs)
more people become qPCR+ and asymptomatic.
Over time qPCR will get worse and worse at identifying truly infectious people. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.18.20234369v1
As the virus goes endemic and reinfections occur
(yes they are frequent with HCoVs)
more people become qPCR+ and asymptomatic.
Over time qPCR will get worse and worse at identifying truly infectious people. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.18.20234369v1
CDC estimates on reinfections with HCoVs.
4-21% in 6 months.
How much of todayâs panic, is reinfection from the spring where we had no testing volumes to catalog who got it then?
Sloppy tests wonât make this better.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/reinfection.html
4-21% in 6 months.
How much of todayâs panic, is reinfection from the spring where we had no testing volumes to catalog who got it then?
Sloppy tests wonât make this better.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/reinfection.html
Reinfection shouldnât scare you.
Itâs usually asymptomatic and non-infectious ... but a qPCR test will still call you a case and quarantine you... and your contact map...
Wreck the economy.
Empower selfish egomaniac politicians to make more arbitrary rules for you but not them.
Itâs usually asymptomatic and non-infectious ... but a qPCR test will still call you a case and quarantine you... and your contact map...
Wreck the economy.
Empower selfish egomaniac politicians to make more arbitrary rules for you but not them.
Some have said that no qPCR can discern infect/non-infect RNA and you are just constructing an impossible expectation.
Wolfel et al explain how to do that here... and Drosten is on the paper.
This would have been a good time to pull the hasty assay. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x
Wolfel et al explain how to do that here... and Drosten is on the paper.
This would have been a good time to pull the hasty assay. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x
