reSee.it - Related Video Feed

What kind of work are you doing now? I work for Eurofins in various clinical trial settings. I don't believe you know how to read and interpret the tests. What tests? Let's discuss PCR validation. How do you validate a PCR? What’s the sensitivity of a test? It’s how well the test can detect low amounts of material. Sensitivity is the percent chance that an infected person tests positive. That’s a good way to put it. Now, specificity? It’s how accurate the test is in detecting what it’s supposed to detect, not something else. What you’re hoping to detect?

Dr. Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize winner for inventing the PCR test, explains that the test was not designed to detect viruses. The PCR test can find almost anything in anyone if done properly, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's meaningful. The official protocol for COVID-19 PCR testing has led to false positives, labeling asymptomatic individuals as infected. Mullis discovered that there was no proof of HIV causing AIDS when he was hired to measure HIV levels using PCR. He realized that no one had evidence to support the claim. Mullis also exposed how the CDC and high-level officials profited from the HIV/AIDS connection. Despite his willingness to challenge them, few people were interested in exposing the truth. Mullis passed away in 2019, just before the emergence of COVID-19.

We need to be careful not to have too many false positives due to extensive testing. Tests are not 100% accurate and have a small margin of error. If the overall infection rate decreases and testing is expanded to millions, there will be more false positives than actual positives. These are the challenges we face and the insights we gain. Therefore, it still makes sense to offer more testing, but not just randomly every day, rather with a specific goal in mind.

The PCR test, commonly used for COVID-19, involves a nasal swab. According to Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who created the test, it can detect almost anything if amplified enough. However, Mullis himself stated that the PCR test should not be used to diagnose diseases, as it only detects fragments of illness. Many laboratories worldwide run the test at high amplification levels, leading to a high rate of false positives. Even Anthony Fauci acknowledged that results beyond 33 cycles are likely not infectious material. The New York Times reported that 90% of PCR tests were not indicative of active illness. Lowering the amplification cycles resulted in significant reductions in case numbers. In the past, PCR tests have caused false positives, such as in a whooping cough pseudoepidemic. Some criticize Fauci for misleading the public.

Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, explained that the test can find almost anything in anyone if done well. However, he believed it was a misuse to claim it as meaningful. The official protocol for COVID-19 PCR testing created false positives, skewing the results. Mullis also questioned the HIV-AIDS connection and criticized Anthony Fauci and Robert Gallo. He wanted to expose them and their actions, but not many people listened. Mullis passed away in August 2019, just months before the COVID-19 pandemic began, raising questions about the timing.

The widely used PCR tests for COVID-19 are too sensitive, meaning they can detect not only live virus but also dead virus and other materials. The problem is that the results sent to doctors and patients don't specify whether the virus is live or dead. Recent data from Massachusetts, New York, and Nevada showed that 90% of positive cases carried very little virus. If this trend applies nationwide, only a small fraction of positive cases would actually need to isolate and undergo contact tracing. To prevent unnecessary disruptions, it's important to test in a smarter way, focusing on the contagiousness of individuals. This approach would help schools reopen faster and make more sense overall.

A Chinese study published in Nature conducted 10 million PCR tests in Wuhan and found that out of the 300 asymptomatic cases, none produced a live virus in the lab setting. This suggests that high cycling of PCR was generating false positives. PCR detects nucleic acid, not disease, and is typically followed up with confirmatory tests. The study did not confirm the presence of infectious viral particles through culture-based methods. False positives occur when healthy individuals with residual viral DNA are magnified due to high cycling. PCR can detect viral RNA long after the disappearance of the infectious virus.

The existence of the virus is questioned due to the initial PCR test methodology being based on a computer model virus, not a purified isolate from real patients. China did not have a pure isolate, so they used elements of a genetic code to create a computer model sequence. This sequence became the basis for the PCR test. The WHO document states that the diagnosis of SARS CoV-2 should not rely on isolating the virus. The virus has never been purified, and the disease is based on generic symptoms that could be anything.

The PCR test, used to determine COVID-19 cases, amplifies RNA fragments to detect the virus. However, the high amplification can also detect traces of dead virus or remnants from other coronaviruses. Scientists recommend not testing over 30 cycle thresholds to avoid false positives. When labs reduced the cycles, case numbers significantly decreased. False positives can occur almost half the time, especially in populations with low COVID-19 prevalence. In the past, PCR tests have caused false epidemics. The test requires skilled technicians and careful handling, but it is currently being conducted on a large scale with hastily trained personnel. Therefore, it is important to question the accuracy of reported case numbers.

Misusing PCR isn't quite accurate; it's more about how results are interpreted. PCR can detect almost anything in a sample, leading to the belief that everything is present in the body. While PCR amplifies a single molecule for measurement, the implications of finding something like HIV are less straightforward. The measurement for HIV isn't precise, unlike measuring tangible items like apples. Tests for HIV rely on invisible components, making results inferred rather than definitive. PCR itself is a method for amplification and doesn't indicate illness or the potential harm of what is detected.

The measurement for HIV is not exact like it is for apples. HIV tests are based on invisible things and the results are inferred. PCR is a process used to make a lot of something out of something. It doesn't indicate if you're sick or if the thing you have will harm you.

Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, explained that the test can find almost anything in anyone if done well. However, he believed it was a misuse to claim it as meaningful. The official protocol for COVID-19 PCR testing created false positives, skewing the results. Mullis also questioned the HIV-AIDS connection and criticized Anthony Fauci and Robert Gallo. He wanted to expose them and their actions, but not many people listened. Mullis passed away in August 2019, just months before the COVID-19 pandemic began, raising questions about the timing.

Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, explained that the test can find almost anything in anyone if done well. However, using it to claim meaning or diagnose a virus is a misuse. The official protocol for COVID-19 PCR testing has led to false positives, labeling asymptomatic individuals as infected. 30 years ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci pushed for higher doses of the drug AZT for AIDS patients, despite lacking evidence. Mullis discovered there was no proof of HIV causing AIDS. He questioned the CDC's profit motives and the involvement of high-level officials. Mullis wanted to expose Fauci and Gallo but faced little attention. He passed away in 2019, just before the emergence of COVID-19, leaving many questioning the timing.

The speaker discusses the issue of cycle thresholds in PCR testing. They explain that the original protocol used a cycle threshold of 45, which amplifies the results by 10. This means that even unlikely findings, such as particles from Mars, could be detected. The speaker suggests that by using a high cycle threshold, it is possible to create a pandemic by testing healthy individuals and spreading the myth of asymptomatic spread. This is how cases are created, according to the speaker.

There have been reports of patients shedding viral RNA for weeks, but it doesn't seem to be infectious. The question is whether they are still a threat for transmission. The idea is to use a cutoff of viral loads determined by PCR to determine if a patient is no longer infectious and can go home or to a nursing facility. A cycle threshold of 35 or more is considered to have miniscule chances of being replication competent. It is frustrating for both patients and physicians when the PCR test shows a high cycle threshold, as it is unlikely to culture virus from it. Reporting the threshold cycle is becoming a standard practice in diagnosis.

No one responded when I asked for proof. Everything was rushed in the case of AIDS, with no proper research or debate among scientists. The announcement was made without solid evidence, and a veil of secrecy was placed over an approximate truth. This is not how science works. Normally, you conduct experiments, analyze the results, and verify them before making a scientific announcement. But in this case, they held a press conference and declared that HIV is the cause of AIDS. They didn't explain why or provide any scientific references. There is no scientific reference, just a collection of arguments and indirect evidence.

The documentary traces the global HIV/AIDS story through shifting science, politics, testing, treatment, and personal narratives, revealing a landscape of debate, fear, and influence that has shaped how the epidemic is understood and managed. From the outset, the film juxtaposes dramatic claims about the virus with questions about complacency, fear, and the human cost of AIDS. Early voices warn that HIV remains a deadly virus despite reduced fear, while others emphasize a persistent problem for individuals and the vast number of people living with the virus. The central tension is set: can a cure be found, and what would it take? A through-line is the distinction between HIV and AIDS. The narrator and interviewees seek clarity on what causes AIDS, how HIV relates to it, and why the distinction matters for diagnosis and treatment. Experts emphasize core definitions: HIV is a virus; AIDS is a syndrome caused by infection with the virus; you don’t get infected with AIDS, you get infected with HIV which can lead to AIDS. Yet the dialogue also documents persistent public confusion about the difference, and shows that international definitions and country-specific criteria have evolved and sometimes diverged, complicating diagnosis and statistics. The film surveys the history of HIV/AIDS terminology and surveillance. It highlights the GRID term, the early CDC framework, and the 1985, 1987, and 1993 definition changes that broadened AIDS criteria, sometimes to include people with varying CD4 counts or opportunistic infections. A retroactive redefinition in 1993 reportedly increased estimates, and a Bangui criteria conference in Africa sought a simple clinical way to diagnose AIDS in settings with limited lab access. World Health Organization definitions multiply across countries, leading to several AIDS definitions worldwide and debates about how to interpret the numbers. The program documents how testing has driven both diagnosis and fear, including debates over screening versus confirmatory testing. It shows rapid antibody tests, ELISAs, Western blots, and viral-load tests, noting limitations and discrepancies: rapid tests may yield false positives or negatives, confirmatory tests can yield inconsistent results across manufacturers, and in some settings, developing nations rely on screening tests without adequate confirmatory verification. The story includes personal accounts of misdiagnosis, false positives, and the emotional toll of testing, as well as examples where people faced life-altering decisions based on uncertain results. The film also questions the reliability of testing narratives in light of varied international criteria and the economics of testing. The narrative shifts to Africa, particularly South Africa, where the epidemic intersects with poverty, infrastructure, and policy debates. It documents the perception that Africa bears the highest incidence of AIDS, the Bangui criteria’s adoption in Africa, the social and economic context, and the role of poverty as a deadly factor that can mimic or exacerbate immune deficiency. It also notes skepticism about how data are compiled and presented, including claims that numbers are influenced by advocacy, funding incentives, and political considerations. The film chronicles the evolution of treatment from AZT monotherapy to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and the cocktail era, detailing dramatic shifts in prognosis and the emergence of drug toxicity and side effects. Personal testimonies recount adverse reactions, weight changes, lipodystrophy, heart risks, and the existential dilemma of lifelong treatment versus quality of life. The dramatic arc notes that, while HAART transformed AIDS from a fatal disease to a manageable chronic condition for many, the treatment introduced new side effects and ethical concerns about prescribing practices, access, and the long-term effects of therapy. A recurring theme is the tension between scientific consensus and dissenting voices. The film presents prominent figures associated with HIV research and advocacy, including discussions of the role of Robert Gallo, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and Montagnier, and the geopolitical dynamics around the virus’s identification and acceptance as the cause of AIDS. It includes accounts of cofactor theories proposing that other factors—cofactors beyond HIV—may influence progression and that poverty, malnutrition, and coexisting infections can affect immune function. Some interviewees critique the dominance of a single narrative and suggest that alternative explanations have been marginalized or labeled as unscientific. Personal stories punctuate the analysis: families learning of HIV status, the experience of testing in settings from a South African train station to clinics in Romania, and the emotional and practical consequences of a positive diagnosis. The film documents the journey from diagnosis to treatment, including the trials and revelations of those who have acquired, faced, or combated the disease, and those who question or reconsider the standard medical narrative. Towards the end, the documentary reflects on the broader social and ethical implications: the cost and allocation of billions in AIDS funding, the disproportionate burden on poorer nations, the role of activism and politics in shaping policy, and the ongoing uncertainty about optimal testing, diagnosis, and cure. It closes by acknowledging the resilience of people living with HIV and those who work to understand and treat the virus, while underscoring that many fundamental questions about HIV, AIDS, and their interconnections remain debated in scientific and public spheres. The conclusion suggests that the epidemic’s true battles may extend beyond biology to include poverty, access, governance, and the politics of data.

There have been reports of patients shedding viral RNA for weeks, but it doesn't seem to be infectious. The question is whether we can use a cutoff of viral load determined by PCR to determine if a patient is no longer infectious. If the cycle threshold is 35 or more, the chances of it being replication competent are very low. It's frustrating for both patients and physicians when the PCR results show a high cycle threshold, like 37, because it's unlikely to culture virus from that. So if someone has a cycle threshold of 37, 38, or even 36, it's just dead nucleotides.

The speaker asks if a PCR test can be used to determine if a patient is no longer infectious. The other speaker explains that if the cycle threshold is 35 or higher, the chances of the virus being able to replicate are very low. They mention that it is frustrating for both patients and physicians when the cycle threshold is high, but it is unlikely to culture the virus. They conclude that if the cycle threshold is 37, 38, or even 36, it is just dead nucleotides.

The speakers discuss the misuse of PCR in estimating viral RNA. They explain that PCR can detect almost anything in the body, making it easy to find even rare viruses like HIV. However, they argue that testing for HIV specifically is unnecessary because individuals with HIV are likely to have other viruses as well. They emphasize that PCR is a quantitative tool that provides measurable information, but it does not determine sickness or the potential harm of a virus. The speakers also mention that PCR cannot differentiate between virus particles and active live viruses. Overall, they highlight the limitations and misinterpretations of PCR testing.

The speaker asks if a PCR test can be used to determine if a patient is no longer infectious. They mention that if the cycle threshold is 35 or higher, the chances of the virus being contagious are very low. They also mention that even if a patient has a cycle threshold of 37 or higher, it is unlikely that the virus can be cultured. Therefore, they conclude that a cycle threshold of 37 or higher indicates that the virus is no longer viable.

PCR is a process that can amplify molecules in the body, making it possible to find almost anything in anyone. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the presence of a molecule indicates illness or harm. The measurement for HIV, for example, is not exact and is based on invisible factors. PCR itself is just a method to create more of something. It doesn't determine sickness or potential harm.

The PCR test, used to detect the presence of the SARS CoV-2 virus, has come under scrutiny for its reliability and potential for false positives. The test amplifies RNA fragments to identify the virus, but it can also detect traces of dead virus or remnants from other coronaviruses. Testing at high cycle thresholds can result in false positives, especially in populations with low COVID-19 prevalence. Scientists recommend not testing over 30 cycle thresholds to reduce false positives. Lowering the cycle thresholds has led to significant reductions in reported cases. The misuse and misinterpretation of the PCR test has contributed to inflated case numbers and unnecessary panic.

If a PCR test has a cycle threshold (CT) of 35 or higher, the chances of it being replication competent are very low. So, if someone's PCR test has a CT of 37 or higher, it's unlikely that the virus can be cultured from it. In fact, even a CT of 36 may indicate that it's just dead nucleotides.

PCR is not misused, but its interpretation can be. PCR can find almost anything in anybody by amplifying a single molecule. Testing for HIV and claiming it has special meaning is the problem, because someone with HIV likely has other viruses. PCR is quantitative and makes minuscule amounts measurable, but this can lead to misinterpretations. HIV measurements are not exact. HIV tests are based on invisible things and inferred results. PCR makes a lot of something out of something, but it doesn't indicate sickness or harm. Even if you believe in HIV, PCR can't differentiate between virus particles or active live virus.