partington

None of this is true either factually or in its implications. Fifteen years ago - 2006 - well over 100 planets outside our solar system had already been discovered- the first extra-solar planet was detected in 1992. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_before_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_between_2000–2009 The lack of evidence for extra-solar planets before then did not lead to any general claim or belief that they did not exist, merely the absolutely factual statement that no evidence had yet been found for their existence. Most people thought that their existence was extremely likely, with Isaac Newton being the most famous proponent of the hypothesis that other fixed stars would have orbiting planets, in 1687. In any case there is no applicable analogy between your incorrect statements about the discovery of extra-solar planets and the well attested observational epidemiological evidence over centuries that there is no consistent evolution of viral or any other pathogens towards lower virulence. The Black death killed millions in cycles century after century after century, only ameliorating when each cycle had killed so many people that only the immune or recovered were left. Viral smallpox has afflicted mankind since 10,000BC, and despite near eradication by vaccination, breakthrough outbreaks are still feared as the disease remains deadly. Rather than I having to explain to you why the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1919 eventually burnt out, you have to explain to me why you think evolution towards a less deadly variant, rather than herd immunity arising from its infection and killing of such a large proportion of the world's population that its infection cycles were terminated, is the most likely explanation. And , even if the Spanish Flu virus did evolve towards lower virulence, you have to explain why you think that the attributes of this single pathogen must be applicable to all disease pathogens including SARS-Cov2, despite evidence for contrary behaviour existing for many other pathogens throughout history.

“Put simply, this has been one of the most baffling misinformation myths peddled during the pandemic,” said Prof Alan McNally, director of the Institute of Microbiology and Infection at the University of Birmingham. “There is almost no evidence of any human pathogenic virus evolving towards reduced virulence. Microevolution and virulence of dengue viruses. Advances Virus Research. (2003) 59:315-41. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3527(03)59009-Rebeca Rico-Hesse, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio, Texas 78227, USA. " As to the question of whether dengue viruses are evolving toward virulence as they continue to spread throughout the world, phylogenetic and epidemiological analyses suggest that the more virulent genotypes are now displacing those that have lower epidemiological impact; there is no evidence for the transmission of antigenically aberrant, new strains"

The idea that viruses become less virulent or cause less disease over time is a myth. If a virus is mostly transmitted or transmissible before you become seriously ill or die then that is all the virus needs to do. Many of the symptoms of viral diseases happen in order to transmit the virus effectively. Sneezing, coughing, runny noses, diarrhea, all cause body fluids full of viruses to be discharged into the environment and therefore enhance the ability to infect others. This is what the symptoms are for. Smallpox, Dengue, AIDS, Yellow fever, Ebola, Polio, Meningitis have not evolved to become less dangerous over time (they have become less serious as a direct result of major human interventions such as vaccination and development of effective drug treatments). Here is a link to a Guardian article explaining this and an extract https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/03/what-does-the-future-hold-for-coronavirus-explainer "A recurring suggestion is that pathogens evolve, over some undefined period, to be more transmissible and less virulent, bringing virus and host towards a state of benign coexistence. If Omicron is spreading so quickly, some wondered, perhaps it will at least be milder. But experts say this expectation has no scientific basis. “Put simply, this has been one of the most baffling misinformation myths peddled during the pandemic,” said Prof Alan McNally, director of the Institute of Microbiology and Infection at the University of Birmingham. “There is almost no evidence of any human pathogenic virus evolving towards reduced virulence. The simplistic argument behind the idea is that if a pathogen kills its host, or makes them too sick to leave the house, then it gives itself a worse chance of propagating. So by the logic of survival of the fittest, there would be a selective pressure for milder strains. Sadly, the dynamic is more complex in the real world. [...] In the case of coronavirus, there is also an obvious hole in the argument: transmission normally occurs before symptoms start or during the earliest stage of symptoms, meaning that severity of illness has little influence on the spread of the virus.”

Some vaccinated people do die or get seriously ill, they are just much less likely to than unvaccinated people. Unvaccinated people have a greater chance of killing each other, as well as of killing vaccinated people. Unvaccinated people also permit the unhindered replication of the virus in their own bodies, which generates countless mutations, which have the potential to become more virulent or more vaccine resistant strains, which then cause greater problems for vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. It's clear that the Omicron variant originated in largely unvaccinated South Africa, for this reason. Omicron may not be as dangerous as is feared, but the more unvaccinated people there are, the more likely that a more serious strain will emerge and start the whole thing off again.

Every part of this is nonsense, and the fact that you believe it and repost it exposes you as a bit childishly credulous. The now dead Kary Mullis was, in addition to the inventor of PCR, a believer in ghosts, an AIDS virus and climate change denier, and an enterpreneur who sold jewellery apparently containing celebrities' DNA. He was, in short, kind of a nutter who had one good idea, and never made another significant contribution to science. If he did say that PCR could not or should not be used as a diagnostic tool (which I believe is probably made up information) he was utterly wrong, as PCR was, and is, used as an FDA -approved diagnostic tool for literally dozens of disease pathogens. This was the case way before Covid was in existence; the diseases include anthrax, TB, and Dengue [see *below for link and extracts] The idea that false positives can be generated deliberately by cranking up PCR cycles is foolish, because negative controls are run in all sample batches-that is samples known not to contain any virus are always run alongside test samples under exactly the same conditions- so any positives in the negative controls result in every result in that run being discarded. This is standard practice. Similarly your silliness about specifying the number of cycles used is irrelevant-both because of the negative control precautions noted above, and because nearly all PCR test kits are run on real time PCR machines under identical cycle number protocols. This statement you make; "In the USA it has been officially said by medical authorities the PCR test is "not fit for purpose" and it is being withdrawn this month." is a direct lie from some batsh*t crazy source. No medical authority has ever said this in any official capacity. Secondly there is no such thing as "the" PCR test, since there are many different Covid PCR tests currently approved by the FDA, so there isn't "a" test that could be withdrawn. Try to be a bit more analytical and critical in your beliefs - don't just swallow misinformation to support your biases. *Here are just a few of the currently used FDA-approved PCR diagnostic tests for diseases from many listed here https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/nucleic-acid-based-tests#microbial Anthrax: Bacillus Anthracis B. anthracis Real-time PCR Assay Centers for Disease Control and Prevention K192871 Bordetella (whooping cough) AMPLIVUE BORDETELLA ASSAY QUIDEL CORPORATION K143206 Dengue Dengue virus CDC DENV-1-4 Real-Time RT-PCR Assay Centers for Disease Control and Prevention K113336 Hepatitis C Abbott Realtime HCV Assay Abbott Molecular, Inc. P100017 S001-S006, S007-S012, S014-S019 Multiple respiratory virus panel including flu CDC Human Influenza Virus Real-time RT-PCR Detection and Characterization Panel Centers for Disease Control and Prevention K080570 Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) Amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct Test Gen-Probe, Inc. P940034 Gastrointestinal disease multiplex panel to distinguish multiple pathogens including bacterial -salmonella, viral-norovirus, and parasites-giardia, entamoeba. xTAG Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel (GPP) Luminex Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. K121894, K121454 Smallpox (variola virus) Variola Variola Virus Real-Time PCR Assay Centers for Disease Control and Prevention DEN160016, DEN1600

This is utterly silly. The doctor quoted has treated only a few patients, all of whom were apparently children or young adults. The fact they had mild symptoms is meaningless statistically. There simply have not been enough tracked patients with this variant as yet to make any sort of valid scientific conclusion about how dangerous it is compared to previous variants. The original SARS-Cov-2 and it's subsequent variants are estimated to have killed 5 million people so far. It is also estimated that 30% of people infected with these variants not only don't die, but have no symptoms. Therefore you can tell literally nothing about the seriousness of a new variant by observing a few patients.

This rather suspect source you mean: Clearly the effect of all Covid variants differs between different age groups and vulnerability groups. There are not enough patients with the omicron variant to make any valid statistical comparison between this variant and any others and a doctor mainly treating a few children or young adults definitely cannot do so.

In case you haven't got the 1 second it takes to Google this, NAAT stands for nucleic acid amplification test. An RT-PCR is one kind of NAAT, the most common kind for Covid -19 virus detection. It detects the nucleic acid of COVID-19- which is RNA- after conversion to the nucleic acid DNA, which is done by the RT (reverse transcriptase) step. It relies on usually 40 repeated thermal cycles -commonly 94°C for followed by 68°C. But new technology now means there are several other kinds of nucleic acid amplification tests to detect the nucleic acid of Covid-19. They are also NAATs, but they are not identical to RT-PCR, being based on different methods of amplifying the nucleic acid . For example there are amplifications that can be done at a single temperature (isothermal). However if it is called an RT-PCR (NAAT) it should be the same as a test called simply RT-PCR.

It's unfortunate that they have the same initials, and that some newspaper articles confuse the two. The abbreviation RT-PCR with reference to Covid tests always means reverse transcriptase PCR, because this is the only kind of PCR test that is able to detect Covid, as Sheryl pointed out above. Real-time PCR refers to the kind of equipment used to read the PCR results - nowadays nearly all PCRs of any kind done in a high throughput lab would be real time PCRs, so all Covid PCR tests will also be real time PCRs. However while all Covid tests MUST be reverse-transcriptase PCRs, they are not obligatorily real time PCRs, though they almost certainly are as well. A PCR test consists of around 40 temperature cycle repeats, a cycle being, for example 94°C for 20 secs, followed by 68°C for 30sec. A real time PCR measures the amount of detected product during each cycle, as it is happening, so is faster. Earlier methods relied on waiting until all 40 cycles are done and then measuring the amount of detected product afterwards. So the correct description of a Covid test is a "Real -Time RT-PCR". You can see this kind of terminology used by the FDA to describe other diagnostic tests- e.g.here in the FDA listed approved PCR test for Dengue: Dengue virus CDC DENV-1-4 Real-Time RT-PCR Assay Centers for Disease Control and Prevention K113336 source: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/nucleic-acid-based-tests#microbial

Amazing but true...the technology seems to be improving month by month rather than year by year! !

Absolutely correct! I used language too loosely here, intending to indicate that the test was based on detection by antibodies rather than detection by PCR.

Fair enough: I didn't click on other sections of that page, as I said above, so didn't see this, I just followed your original link.

Fair enough- I didn't click on that- however these are all "results next day" tests. The OP referred to the "results in 3 hours" tests as PCR tests, which is definitely not the case.

Not strictly true - all PCR tests for Covid are RT-PCR tests. Other kinds of virus, for example, have DNA not RNA as their genetic material (unlike the Covid virus) , so no RT step is needed to convert RNA to DNA, because it is already DNA. Test for these viruses would NOT be RT-PCR tests.

The LHR tests linked in the OP, as I just posted (!) are not PCR tests of any kind, they are antibody tests and do not qualify if PCR tests are specified. Also, as I just posted (!!), all Covid PCR tests must by necessity be RT-PCR tests whether stated directly or not, as there is no other kind of PCR test that works for Covid testing. I guess proper training would be needed for airline personnel to be made aware of this.

This link you provide doesn't refer to any kind of PCR test at all, but to a lateral flow antigen test, which is an antibody test. It is completely unrelated to PCR, but detects virus proteins on a strip. It wouldn't qualify where PCR tests are specifically required.

The technician was telling you slightly dodgy facts or didn't understand himself. It is not a fact that RT-PCR tests are "more accurate", it is actually that no other type of PCR test for Covid exists. There is no such thing as a Covid PCR test that is not an RT-PCR test: ALL Covid PCR tests are RT-PCR tests, whether they are directly stated to be or not. (You can refer to the Covid test as a "PCR test", because an RT-PCR test is a type of PCR test, just as you can call a diesel car "a car" or a "diesel car" because a diesel car is a type of car.) The exact technical details don't matter much, as the explanation is quite simple. Here it is: PCR tests can only be done on the genetic material called DNA. The Covid virus genetic material is not DNA, it is RNA, therefore before the PCR test is performed the RNA must be converted to DNA. The enzyme reverse transcriptase (RT) converts RNA into DNA. Therefore an RT step to convert virus RNA to DNA must ALWAYS be done before doing the PCR step. Consequently ALL Covid PCR tests must be RT-PCR tests, or they simply wouldn't work.

Baffling...the more science that is done, and the more rigorous the science, the more evidence is gained and the more trustworthy are the conclusions. The truth is there have been no adequately performed randomised blinded clinical trials of ivermectin to date. The two that did exist and were responsible for basically all the positive efficacy effects observed in metastudies were faked, rendering those conclusions invalid. Other studies have been ludicrously poorly carried out, not randomised not controlled adequately and sometimes just unjustifiable post-hoc correlations that mean nothing. Of course my view is that ivermectin is useless against Covid-19 - this is a social media fuelled idiocy, and it needs to be put down for good. These studies will do that. The fact that important and well respected research groups such as the Oxford group are doing these studies demonstrates that in their view the question still needs necessary research, or they wouldn't be wasting time and money on them. And if they show there really is any benefit derived from ivermectin I will be the first to retract this opinion, because that is what gathering high quality evidence is for!

These studies are large enough, well-regulated enough and conducted by impeccable researchers. I would accept the findings of these studies as absolutely definitive in settling the question for good.

Perhaps the fact that the only two randomised studies to show clear positive effects for ivermectin have both been revealed to contain faked data will give you a clue that the actual outcome of these studies was that there was no effect (or they wouldn't have needed to fake them). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y

I did not say a dose limit was applied to the safety data, I said the dosage given to people as anti-parasitics (the major use of ivermectin world wide) is one dose annually: this of necessity means that overwhelming mass of safety data on this drug is derived from patients treated with one dose annually. This is self evident. If you don't read newspapers concerning retractions and problems with randomised double blind studies of ivermectin then probably this article in Nature Medicine 21 Sept 2021 will be more convincing to you. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y Extract: ["Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, [Elgazzar, A. et al. Preprint at https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v3 (2020).] the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses2,3. We described several irregularities in the data that could not be consistent with them being experimentally derived4. That study has now been withdrawn by the preprint server5 on which it was hosted. We also raised concerns about unexpected stratification across baseline variables in another randomized controlled trial for ivermectin6, [Shakhsi Niaee, M. et al. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 14, 266–273 (2021).https://www.apjtm.org/article.asp?issn=1995-7645;year=2021;volume=14;issue=6;spage=266;epage=273;aulast=Shakhsi] which were highly suggestive of randomization failure. We have requested data from the authors but, as of 6 September 2021, have not yet received a response. This second ivermectin study has now been published6, and there is still no response from the authors in a request for data. The authors of one recently published meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-193 [Hill, A. et al. Open Forum Infectious Diseases https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab358 (2021).] have publicly stated that they will now reanalyze and republish their now-retracted meta-analysis and will no longer include either of the two papers just mentioned. As these two papers1,6were the only studies included in that meta-analysis to demonstrate an independently significant reduction in mortality, the revision will probably show no mortality benefit for ivermectin. Several other studies that claim a clinical benefit for ivermectin are similarly fraught, and contain impossible numbers in their results, unexplainable mismatches between trial registry updates and published patient demographics, purported timelines that are not consistent with the veracity of the data collection, and substantial methodological weaknesses. We expect further studies supporting ivermectin to be withdrawn over the coming months. Since the above primary studies were published, many hundreds of thousands of patients have been dosed with ivermectin, relying on an evidence base that has substantially evaporated under close scrutiny."]

Ivermectin is not by any means a highly active antiviral - the dose of ivermectin needed to prevent RNA viruses replicating in cells is 60 times that achievable in the blood by the highest doses of ivermectin given to human beings. Antiviral Research June 2020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/ This means it is almost impossible to see how any antiviral activity could be attained by the single dose of ivermectin yearly that is given as an anti-parasitic, and upon which a lot of the anecdotal evidence about ivermectin is based, or by repeated doses.. The only major double blind studies of ivermectin that have shown significant efficacy against COVID have both been revealed recently as fabricated data and withdrawn. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/25/fraudulent-ivermectin-studies-open-up-new-battleground-between-science-and-misinformation The binding of ivermectin to the spike 2 protein is a theoretical computer prediction entirely obtained by running software and has not been directly demonstrated in vitro, and therefore neither has its ability to prevent ACE2 mediated entry of SARS CoV-2 ever been shown directly. The same is true of apparent binding to RdRp - this is based on computer modelling without any direct binding studies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33746908/ The inhibition by ivermectin of import proteins that carry viral components into the nucleus has been shown experimentally, but this means it also prevents importation of necessary host proteins into the nucleus, including those which are essential for immune responses. This raises the possibility of toxic interference with normal cell functions if doses are used which prevent viral import. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327999/ Again it should be emphasised that the anti-parasitic dose of ivermectin, used world wide, and upon which safety data is based, is ONE dose annually.

If your return is after the expiry date of your visa -the 'valid until', or 'enter before' date -[the 'permission to stay until' date is irrelevant] then you need a re-entry permit. If you are coming back during the validity period of your visa -the 'valid until', or 'enter before' date - you do not need a re-entry permit.

The inventor of PCR never claimed that it can't diagnose anything. This is just false misrepresentation coupled with wilful ignorance. The FDA have approved countless PCR panel tests to identify all kinds of pathogens causing every type of disease including meningitis, tuberculosis, urinary tract infections, sepsis, and gastrointestinal infections. These are and have been in use way before covid, and more are being developed all the time. These are simple verifiable facts, so stating the contrary is futile. Here are just a few from many listed here https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/nucleic-acid-based-tests#microbial Anthrax: Bacillus Anthracis B. anthracis Real-time PCR Assay Centers for Disease Control and Prevention K192871 Bordetella (whooping cough) AMPLIVUE BORDETELLA ASSAY QUIDEL CORPORATION K143206 Dengue Dengue virus CDC DENV-1-4 Real-Time RT-PCR Assay Centers for Disease Control and Prevention K113336 Hepatitis C Abbott Realtime HCV Assay Abbott Molecular, Inc. P100017 S001-S006, S007-S012, S014-S019 Multiple respiratory virus panel including flu CDC Human Influenza Virus Real-time RT-PCR Detection and Characterization Panel Centers for Disease Control and Prevention K080570 Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) Amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct Test Gen-Probe, Inc. P940034 Gastrointestinal disease multiplex panel to distinguish multiple pathogens including bacterial -salmonella, viral-norovirus, and parasites-giardia, entamoeba. xTAG Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel (GPP) Luminex Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. K121894, K121454 Smallpox (variola virus) Variola Variola Virus Real-Time PCR Assay Centers for Disease Control and Prevention DEN160016, DEN1600

Yes but children with Covid are dangerous to vulnerable adults they come in contact with- that is the point of vaccinating everyone- to prevent or reduce transmission to those who will die.