Thanks for proving me right, let me explain AGAIN (you butthurt douche...)
>On 7 July 2021 the CDC updated their “Instructions for Use” of RT-PCR Covid tests.
And you know why they updated it? Precisely because they were doing it wrong, as I pointed out, countless times...
Again, it's abundantly clear what is ACTUALLY required to avoid false positives... https://www.pasteur.fr/en/home/press-area/press-documents/operation-and-reliability-rt-pcr-tests-detection-sars-cov-2
2020.11.16
>Reliability of the RT-PCR test To guarantee the performance of the test under development, scientists employed a system able to detect whether the three sequences used to recognize SARS-CoV-2 were present in other living organisms. With regard to the RT-PCR tests developed by the National Reference Center, the three sequences are not present simultaneously in any other organisms apart from SARS-CoV-2.
>The test is then validated on primary samples (confirmed as positive and negative) to verify its specificity and sensitivity (no false positives or false negatives). Negative controls (here for example nose or throat samples taken before 2019) can help assess the risk of non-specific amplification.
>Finally, it is advisable to use two different tests (the two tests developed by the CNR at the Institut Pasteur are named IP2 and IP4) on the same sample to guarantee the reliability of the result. This means that six sequences of the viral genome, rather than three, need to be recognized and amplified, thereby increasing the reliability of RT-PCR testing.
And that, evidently, isn't going to work for all and any random "variant" with 43 additional mutations...
(post is archived)