@EthicalSkeptic @JohnBasham This isn’t medically, scientifically, or factually accurate. PCR amp actually tends to have a higher false negative rate than false positive - in large part because common reagents required in testing can destroy sample RNA/DNA
@iina_kobe PCR検査も間違った陽性や陰性が出る事は周知の事実ですよね?機械とか検査方法に問題があるのでは無く、検体を採取した際や検体の梱包や保管や移動中の扱いによって起こる残念な事故 https://t.co/Md6BKIH8Ie https://t.co/JSX6meiTdA
@Drdmdrm @KrutikaKuppalli Something like this from few years ago? I hope they changed the protocol from when this article was written. https://t.co/rCUelUpah9
Gaat verrassend genoeg ook weer over XMRV. Valse positieven, maar ook valse negatieven @MECentraal https://t.co/QO5wROUWxJ
PCR amplification can be blocked by contamination. How MRV positives can fail to be detected! http://t.co/qG85f0XY #mecfs #xmrv #virology
False negatives using PCR. Why have so many negative studies worked with mouse cells? #mecfs #xmrv #virology #autism http://t.co/qG85f0XY
Another explanation for why negative studies have not detected the ME retroviruses! #mecfs #xmrv #autism @vsmacdonald http://t.co/qG85f0XY
Many negative studies had mouse cells lines in the lab. These can cause false negatives for MRVs! #mecfs #xmrv #Autism http://t.co/qG85f0XY
Explanation for how contamination can prevent an assay detecting viruses an assay is optimised to detect. #mecfs #xmrv http://t.co/qG85f0XY
False negative results from using common PCR reagents http://t.co/n4D7NRnq
False negative results from using common PCR reagents http://t.co/m0S57WSu #VBID #Lyme Something to think about.
Recent Publication: False negative results from using common PCR reagents. http://t.co/6KrsY1jr