NO DEFINITIVE TEST FOR EBOLA

[Sheri Nakken]

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases and Child Health
Next classes start in October

[Sheri Nakken]

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases and Child Health
Next classes start in October

[Irene de Villiers]

Something does not make sense in this article, Sheri. So the article looks as fake as whatever it is arguing about.
Nobody looks for Ebola by PCR. PCR only works for DNA viruses and Ebola is an RNA virus.

For Ebola, you would have to use RT-PCR not PCR.

PCR in the right uses, and correctly applied, is neither useless nor msleading.
It is an excellent system. PCR makes billions of copies of the DNA it finds. This provides a large enough sample of the small amount of DNA present to easily determine whose DNA it found. PCR can only multiply up DNA, not RNA as found in Ebola.

SO this guy does not even know what PCR is or does but feels competent to discredit it?

A different newer process called RT-PCR is one that CAN be used for Ebola RNA detection.
This adds an extra step first which converts (by reverse transcription) RNA present (such as in Ebola, HIV, or other RNA sources) into DNA, after which PCR can be used to multiply up the amount for easy analysis.
This RT-PCR and also the PCR process, are used extensively, to identify DNA, used in diagnostics, in phorensics, and even including from very ancient samples such as in archological investigation of human remains.

As an Ebola test, RT-PCR converts RNA found to DNA, then multiplies it by PCR.
RT-PCR tests are aimed at a specific gene that is unique to the virus being looked for. In the case of Ebola the nucleoprotein gene is one that is unique to the GROUP of viruses including all Ebola and Marburg strains of filovirus. So if this test was positive you would have ONE of the Ebol virsues or the Marburgh virus.
Each strain of Ebola does have at least one gene unique to that strain. RT-PCR would have to look for THAT gene in order to identify a specific strain.
As a screening test, it would make more sense to use the general filovirus RT-PCR for filovirus nucleoprotein so as to detect ANY filovirus infection - namely any EBola strain or the Marburgh virus.
Details of this test from 2010 here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3393132/

If the Ebola genome is found, it is present. If it is not found, there may be a false negative. No test is 100% reliable but the article you posted talks nonsense as PCR is not used for Ebola anyway. RT-PCR is used, and you posted no evidence that either test is ineffective.

Investigative reporters with no science training can easily make a mess of what they think they discovered.
Sadly that just makes them look bad, and spreads MORE misinformation.

For example the reporter talks about "EZ1 assay" and puts in brackets that this is a PCR test. His ignorance (or poor investigative ability) is showing: EZ1 is a sample extraction system, not a PCR much less RT-PCR test. EZ1 has the ability to extract not just healthy RNA sample material but also sinificantly degraded RNA material, meaning the sample from an EZ1 process can find RNA even if it is not in very good shape. AFTER EZ1 has extracted a suitable sample, THEN the RT-PCR test is used on that sample.
There are other ways to collect the sample before running a RT-PCR test.
EZ1 is preferred as it can find damaged RNA bits. The RT-PCR only needs a small piece of RNA, so long as it includes the gene the test looks for.
The purification process for sampling BEFORE RT-PCR testing is chosen according to why the test is being run. EZ1 does not give the best QUANTITY results compared to other sampling options, but it is better at finding RNA that is there than other sampling options which may miss small or degraded amounts.
Details on that here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25270217

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Tanya Marquette]

So you are basically saying the reports he quotes from officials are bogus?
Rappaport does not say this is his opinion but what is being put out by govt agencies.

And why would it surprise you that wrongful testing is done. Medicine is political and the
Ebola situation is clearly being manufactured for medical control and profit and military
access. Or maybe you have that much trust in a system that crushes its critics as if you
have not experience in this?

t

[Irene de Villiers]

No I am saying that what HE says as a reporter, is bogus.
This is clear if you read what I wrote more carefully - please.
Mosty of it is HIS writing, not a quote - so HIS opinion - and it makes no sense.
When he quotes he adds nonsense in brackets - like the PCR test after the EZ1 assay quote.
The quote was fine and made complete sense till he messed it up with nonsense "explanations" he invented.
I see nothing wrong with any of the quotes - only he has misinterpreted them into something they are not, with what HE added - clearly showing his complete ignorance of PCR, RT-PCR, Ebola, EZ1 assay and any other scientific reference.
He should not be writing about subjects he does not understand.
There is no wrongful testing mentioned in any quote. He invented some, using nonsense interpretations of real science. He claims PCR testing, and that has no support in any quote or system referred to in h is writing.
Yes, but it also has good science which exists and is valid and useful, however much spin a politician may put on it. In this case the only spin is invented by the writer and holds no water.
Yes using vaccines and a patent on a live organism invented by nature.
......but that is not addressed in this writing. This writing speaks nonsense and asks you to believe it.
I am merely pointing out that it is nonsense.
There are plenty of valid problerms without inventing nonsense ones.
So what if there is "military access" whatever you mean by that - there is no discussion of why they have "military access" here, just misrepresentation of what the military document says.
What it says makes sense - you just have to remove the bracketed PCR nonsense the writer added.
No way that was in the original. The military is not so wet behind the ears as to put nonsense into such a formal document. It's like saying 3 plus 3 is 49. THEY - the military - know better. The writer apparently does not.
I do not trust any system without checking it out - and nor should you. But what I do is to investigate to see where the truth lies.
I found where that is in this case - for the benefit of anyone who cares about truth.

As for my personal experience in a system that crushes its critics, I DO know where the truth lies for that as well.
Do you?

Or does the truth not matter? Is that your argument?
My criticism of the writer was for those who DO care where the truth lies.
There are plenty of places to make valid criticims, the writer just did not find any this time.

For me that shoots his credibility in the foot for other articles asa well. He just tries to hoodwink those who know even less than he does, about the subject, desperate for a rabbel rousing effect apparently, (with clear success as Sheri posted it here with just that intent) ...instead of digging deep enough to find truth to report.

There IS a definitive test for a filovirus (link was placed in my email) and also for specific Ebola strains within that group.
The latter are not being offered publicly as they are too busy making money. It took a lot of work to find a unique gene to use and so that is not being thrown out for free. However they use standard RT-PCR technology for the test; they are just not telling us which gene is involved for each strain. That hey have one is obvious from the analysis and genetic work that identified the gene code of each Ebola strain.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Tanya Marquette]

Irene, we read the article differently. He is not saying that the PCR should be used; he is saying that it is erroneously being used and therefore
the result reported are not real. That is his criticism.

As for the EZ1 assay statement is a quote, not his commentary. So cannot agree with you. That is why I asked whether you thought the
quote was bogus reporting.

I think his whole point is that what is being put out by the govt/medical people is bogus and cannot be relied on for anything meaningful.

Rappaport is pretty radical in his commentary which is hard to read if you are not familiar with that type of politic, but that doesn’t mean he
is wrong.

t

[Angela McGuire]

RNA Is more likely to disintegrate in any kind of PCR type of procedure. It is very delicate and fragile unlike DNA which tends to be rock solid. The bottom line is that even if you manage to amplify it then what? It's all pretty iffy even if you have the best type of polymerase or whatever you're using.

Sent from my iPad

[Irene de Villiers]

Except he invented THAT rabbelrousing idea - after MISquoting what the government said - and then misrepresenting that the wrong test was being used. All untruths.

The original government quote is as foll:

Ebola Zaire (EZ1) rRT-PCR (TaqMan « ) Assay
The diagnosis of Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014) infection must be made based on history, signs, symptoms, exposure likelihood, and other laboratory evidence in addition to the identification of the Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014)...

The entire ORIGINAL document - not Rappaport's invented version - is here:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldev ... 408334.pdf
Rappaport edits it to invent a misused PCR test this way:
That PCR is used or misused is entirely HIS invention.

He then adds insult to injury with all the rubbish he puts up front:
(PCR is an excellent test used in the right places - which is not Ebola - so he lies about that as well)
He is totally full of it! PCR is NOT used for Ebola diagnostics. Nobody is that dumb.
It is not a quote. See the original. He edited it to put in the fiction about PCR.
I already said so and explained why - yes.

I hope I explained better this time. It was obvious to me the first time that HE edited in the PCR part in square brackets, to have an excuse to make up PCR nonsense stories for rabbel-rousing - which is what he did.
As I may have said beofre, I have zero respect for that kind of misrepresentation in the name of journalism, just to get sensationalist attention and popularity for being anti-government.
There are plenty of REAL issues, there is no need to invent any......Lazy egotistical slob IMO.
Journalism is only valid if it is about truth.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Irene de Villiers]

Dear Angie,
Excuse me?
(where did you study virology?)
PCR testing can not be used on RNA, it is physically impossible - and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether RNA is "delicate" or not.
So if you knew anything about virology at all, you would not make the above statement.
Nor would you compare "fragility" of RNA versus DNA which have equal strength as molecules. Just ask the nearest Ebola virus - it does NOT fall apart easily and is all RNA:-)
Furthermore, the tests of PCR for DNA and rRT-PCR for RNA, only need a fragment of a molecule the size of a singe gene to be effective - they in no way need a whole chunk of either RNA or DNA much less the entire molecule - so it matters not how "fragile" or broken the RNA (or DNA) happens to be. Some old piece of genetic material from a few thousand years ago in an Egyptian mummy, for example, is just fine to use. In fact that is exactly how we know what diseases people had back then.
Where does all the fiction and invention come from in your claim?
None of this is news. PCR has been standard in genetic tresting for about 30 yrs and rRT-PCR for almost twenty. It's not news how it works
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."