Kary Banks Mullis was an American biochemist who invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 1983, revolutionizing DNA amplification for genetics, forensics, and medicine. He won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (shared) and the Japan Prize.Regarding PCR during pandemic (which he _weirdly_ died before witnessing), Mullis stated the technique amplifies DNA exquisitely but doesnt tell you that you are sick/infected or prove causation/infectivity alone. He warned against misinterpreting high-cycle results (like detecting non-viable fragments), a point often cited (and debated) in discussions of pandemic case inflation via cycle thresholds.His warnings were largely confirmed by 2025 Güntheret al studyhttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/epidemiology/articles/10.3389/fepid.2025.1592629/fullThis study models nationwide PCR and IgG data, estimating only 14% (kek) of PCR-positive tests reflected actual infections triggering detectable antibodies. This implies 86% overestimation of infections which proves PCR tests absolutely useless. PCR detected non-infectious viral fragments, inflating case counts and undermining pandemic policies reliant on PCR incidence. It means that up to 90% of people diagnozed during "pandemic" as covid infected were not infected by SARS-CoV-2 virus at all.Vid-rel: one of Mullis last interviews about Fauci:https://x.com/RedpillDrifter/status/1926041698834031002He died shortly after giving this interview, few months before the "covid-19 pandemic".
>>16881688He is talking nonsense, because PCR is the standard diagnostic method for viral infections.Yes, high cycles can obviously lead to false positives, which is why you fix the cycle number somewhere reasonable and report a false positive rate alongside your result.It is truly fascinating to see someone not understand his own work.
>>16881691Mullis warned PCR detects non-infectious fragments without proving active illness which requires clinical context. The 2025 Gyenther et al. modeling estimates only 14% of PCR positives led to antibody-confirmed infections. It directly suggest widespread detection of residual RNA overcounted cases that undermines reliance on raw PCR incidence for pandemic measures despite high lab specificity of standarized RT-PCR.
>>16881691nice b8should've tugged my dick instead of reading that would've been better for society
>>16881688You never set up a PCR in your entire cock-sucking life. >non-viable viral DNA fragmentsHey dipshit, how do you think said fragments ended up in the samples? >Mullis stated the technique amplifies DNA exquisitely but doesnt tell you that you are sick/infected or prove causation/infectivity aloneYeah. A correctly performed high-specificity PCR test just tells you if there's a substantial amount of DNA specific to a particular life form in the template you used for this PCR. It's extremely fucking improbable for anyone to have enough amplifier viral DNA in their nasal sinus fluid for an amplification without being sick at the time of test or recently. Estimated 86% of test positives just coincidentally having a lot of specifically SARS-CoV-2 DNA in their samples without any correlation to infection is not and will never be taken seriously by the scientific community. That is not even what the authors of your paper argue - they argue that the administrative approach taken in Germany to estimate the amount of weekly infections was a dumbass stat that overestimated the amounts due to making a HS level mistake in it's approach, and the IgG serological tests confirm the overestimation: >Instead, this evidence-based and representative serological signal was disregarded in favor of relying on the weekly absolute number of positive PCR tests—the so-called “7-day incidence” (“Sieben-Tage-Inzidenz”). Unequivocally, this definition of incidence yields a scientifically meaningless figure in the context of infection dynamics, as it depends entirely on the arbitrary (or imposed) number of PCR tests performed. It is therefore not an objective indicator of epidemiological reality, but an administratively imposed figure—more reflective of political will than scientific rigor. Never do they argue that "up to 90% of people diagnozed during "pandemic" as covid infected were not infected by SARS-CoV-2 virus at all", or that PCR tests are somehow bogus.
>>16881688>Kary Banks Mullis was an American biochemist who invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Mullis was just one researcher, but more importantly the patent holder for a major American corporation. To say that he invented PCR is like saying that Edison invented incandescent light-bulb, or Tesla invented radio. There were documented and published examples of people doing targeted in vitro DNA amplification via isolated polymerase and thermal cycling way before him. Him and Cetus were just the first to go big and commercial with it.
>>168817352025 Guenther et al. study explicitly estimates only 14% of PCR positives reflected actual infections triggering IgG antibodies, attributing the rest to non-infectious residual RNA, low-load exposures not breaching barriers, or false positives. This directly questions raw PCR incidence as an "objective indicator" of active cases, per the authors, and supports Mullis warning on detecting fragments without proving infectivity. The paper critiques policy reliance on arbitrary test numbers, implying massive overcounting of "infections". Paper explicitly states: "only approximately 14% of those who tested PCR-positively actually became infected with SARS-CoV-2" (as evidenced by IgG), attributing 86% discrepancy to non-infectious residual RNA fragments, high Ct values (40-45 yielding non-viable detections) and limited specificity (94%). They conclude: "PCR tests merely detect (...) fragments (...) not necessarily an active infection" which directly supports Mullis warning. Stop being so emotionally engaged, dude xD
>>16881740Mullis came up with and built real, working polymerase chain reaction. The 1971 paper you mentioned only described an idea, it wasnt done in the lab and didnt multiply exponentially. Mullis got the full 1993 Nobel Prize alone for inventing PCR. Unlike Edison or Tesla stories, no one had a practical version before him
>>16881747- No Grok, you are wrong, now please summarize this paper in a way that confirms that Günther et all proved that OP sucks dicks. - Ooops, sorry, you are right. The 2025 paper by Günther et al indeed describes findings on OP consistently choking on fat AIDS nigger cocks. Here's the relevant summary...>>16881750>it wasnt done in the lab It was, multiple times, though those were inferior implementations, and people who achieved them did not realize the potential uses. >Mullis got the full 1993 Nobel PrizeThat's not true, he shared it with Smith.>no one had a practical versionThat's basically what I said before. Please stop using LLM instead of the lump of defective tissues occupying your cranial cavity.
>>16881688Bots are going hard today.
>>16881761 So your ChatGPT denies the studys conclusion that the cumulative official count of "cases" vastly exceeded the estimated number of people who were ever infected? xDBTW, i wrote in my initial thread (i am the OP) that the Nobel Prize was shared but Mullis received full credit for PCR invention. Michael Smith received the other half for unrelated work on site-directed mutagenesis xD
>>16881761 >It was, multiple times, though those were inferior implementations, and people who achieved them did not realize the potential uses1971 paper described a linear polymerase addition, not chain reaction. It lacked thermocycling and exponential amplification, the very core of PCR. No one achieved exponential DNA replication before Mullis 1983 concept and 1985 proof. The Nobel committee confirmed his sole, foundational invention xD
>>16881688based real scientist.RIP to a legend
