#would you like to be in a qPCR with me

[naturallytrans]

as a queer biologist, my mind confuses the two abbreviations qpr and qPCR a lot

[lixenn]

OCtober 2024 day 23: community

@myrmyrtheorca one science girl coming right up! Anemone is also working hard, pipetting lots for qPCR 🫡 what a legend!

A yapping essay under the cut, I will talk science so you have been warned.

Now before I ramble about science I'm just gonna talk about the art for a bit. I did use a reference for this because I'm not insane and drawing the lineart with it was ... alright I would say. I actually looked through my own pictures and my uni website first in case I could find something as a ref but no dice so I needed to look it up anyways. I think the most difficult lineart to draw was the fucking pipettes... I need everyone to know that all the lab equipment (except maybe the blue regant holder) is a simplification of what it actually looks like because by god I could not replicate the real thing with my current skill set. I know most people will not give a fuck but I do so it needed to be said.

Otherwise colouring went okay and rendering wasn't extremely tedious. I noticed that I actually really like rendering blond hair, years ago I found this hack where you use red for the shadows and turn the opacity down and it works so well every time, I'm a bit obsessed tbh. I need to give more of my OCs blond hair lmao.

Okay enough about art let's talk science! Honestly this is really just me explaining science stuff, so feel free to skip because this can get long.

As I mentioned above I drew Anemone doing qPCR and I chose qPCR because her focus is genetic research. So basically she looks into the human genome (entire set of human genes) to see how it correlates to the Pallid Flame.

qPCR stands for quantitative polymerase chain reaction or real time polymerase chain reaction (RTpcr) and it's a valuable tool for analysing stuff down to genetic aka DNA level. You might have learnt about PCR in school but if not or if you've forgotten: PCR is the amplification of a specific gene aka you take one specific part of someone's DNA and replicate it a bunch of times. This is useful if you want to proof if a specific gene is present in the DNA you are analysing. Now qPCR also does the DNA amplification but as it already implies with the name it also counts how much the gene was amplified. You can use qPCR in many applications for example I used this method in my thesis to test if skin related genes are upregulated (higher gene expression aka genes are more activated? <- me trying to simplify genetics I'm not sure if this is the correct term of phrase) or down regulated (lower gene expression) when I put mast cells in my skin models. It gives you insight how certain factors affect cells on DNA level and since it will give you number at the end you can do statistics which is what everyone will really care about. I hope this explanation was at least somehow understandable if anyone has any questions I can talk more about this no prob 🫡

In fact I will talk more about it just... less why you do qPCR but more on how you do it. Because the thing is with this method... You need to pipette, you need to pipette A LOT. And honestly I'm really not a fan because you need to be so exact with this pipetting since each mistake you make stacks up and shows in your data at the end. It's very frustrating especially because there are a lot of steps where you can make mistakes and you need to be fully concentrated the entire time. I... I would say I'm good at my job but I really don't like this part of it because it grates on my nerves. But I think Anemone would be good at it, it's something repetitive that requires a steady hand and patience. Normally post Docs and even some PhD students let assisstants handle this job but I'd like to imagine that Anemone likes doing small things occasionally. Maybe not the entire process (there's a lot of prep work required for qPCR) but the last few steps she can take over, just for a change of pace.

[inpursuitofmeaning]

March 16, 2024

This morning, I went cycling by myself. 6 30 am, free from preying eyes, I still obeyed traffic laws. I truly am a saint. Oh - by the way - I did it! I biked across the border into Gatineau Park - just like I promised myself! It has been 2 years of avoiding that route (and granted, the new bridge opening that connects to the bike paths made it easier than it would have been in the past) - but I am still so proud. First ride out ~check-mark noise~, and did a route that scared me ~check-mark noise~. It was scary, and I was nervous, but as soon as I got to the bridge, I saw the sunset rising above Parliament, saw the reflection of pink and orange on the water, and, truth be told, was very grateful to be alive. At that moment, I felt like I could accomplish anything, including handling the problems that made my yesterday shit and dissuaded me from writing my daily log.

I look a bid disheveled in this picture for obvious reasons.

To be honest, I didn't really feel like writing about how I messed up hydrating my primers in the lab, or how I dropped some on the floor (shhh, it's a secret), or how I got really overwhelmed when learning qPCR, or how my specimens didn't even have latent viruses after all. That sounds like a good thing - and it is, I suppose - however, now I might need to pivot my entire PhD. I also did some critical thinking (for once, shocker) and realized I might not be going in the right direction with my project. I might need to object to a direction that my supervisors are pushing me, and overall am feeling really defeated. I also am unsure where to even begin studying for my committee meeting. But before we get all down about that - let's be in the moment just a little longer. I did the scary bike, and in that moment of bliss, I was at peace.

To be honest, the shit day was what gave me the courage to actually go for the ride. Instead of staying up late working, like I often do, I was so sad that I couldn't bring myself to work. Instead, I set an early alarm and distracted myself with the idea of a romantic early morning bike ride. It worked, and I feel a little calmer.

After the bike ride, Hunter, my wonderful partner, took me on such a lovely cafe date. I got a tea, and he got a hot chocolate. Everything was warm, and everything was right. And in that moment, I was very happy to be alive.

Émile, my French lab mate, and Sophie, blond Godess of the cattle, also gave me some great advice about my project.

"I also messed up making my primers today so I'm lying on the floor in my living room staring into the void" I texted them. "No void staring! The primers got what was coming to them" Sophie responded. I sent a close up of me starting at the camera "POV: Youre the void" I responded. "Qpcr sucks anyways" Émile chimed. "Agreed, made up black magic" I responded. "I'm going to go back to my farming simulator game and farm some REAL crops", I continued. [insert filler discussion between Emile, Sophie and I about the new species maybe not having viruses". "Also if this species done have latent viruses my entire PhD is à la poubelle", I complained. "You will pivot if that is the case! No worry! Forget all that before your exam", Émile assured. "Émile, you are an oracle of wisdom". I worshiped.

Then we started talking about crows, and I felt much better.

[icancdramahanfu]

Hemming complete! As well as things I’ve learned.

Since my last post, I spent the next seven days slowly returning to normal as I indeed had covid (yay -_- nothing like some qPCR results to tell me what I suspected).  I had to dig around to find the dark grey bias tape.  I measured the difference between the red sleeve and the blue sleeve and decided to cut the blue sleeve back by 2 inches.  With pinking scissors I trimmed the fabric down and then ironed the sleeve down flat.  Here I’m holding the bias tape open and you can see where I pinked the fabric.

I then folded the bias tape over the edge and pinned it down.  Annoyingly, I had to pull out the seam ripper to undo a few of the seams at the bottom of the sleeve so I could access the ends of the fabric.

Here is a picture of the edge having been pinned shut.  The sleeve is currently inside out.  I then stitched the bias tape down around the entire sleeve edge.

After getting the bias tape down, I turned the sleeves right side out.  Next, I folded the bias tape inside of the sleeve and pressed it down with the iron.  This created a nice fold that covered the bias tape edge.  For it to look neat, I chose to top stitch the right side of the sleeve with the bias tape completely inside the sleeve folded under. 

In case I messed up, I also went with a longer straight stitch length (4 on my machine, the largest) so that the silk wouldn’t become too tight or pucker a whole lot.  I then put the blue zhiju on top of the red one on a hanger and pulled the sleeves through completely.  Here you can see that the red is just a little longer, giving it that nice layering effect!  The blue zhiju hem also has a nice structure from the bias tape that was folded in and then top stitched down.

Here is a close up of the sleeves.  The only thing that looks a little off is the fact that I used cotton for the red; thus it looks a lot stiffer while the silk on top is more flowly looking.  All in all, I’m pretty pleased with how this turned out and I don’t have enough confidence in my ability to sew well with the silk fabric for edges like this one.

All that is left is finishing up the ties on the zhong yi (middle layer) white undershirt.  And then figure out how I can get some nice pictures of the entire outfit and style a wig which is something I have no great talent with.

What I learned from this experience: (in no particular order)

1.) Be mindful of your overcasting thread color.  For the red and blue layers this wasn’t an issue, I used white for the red and a light purple for the blue layer.  However, for the light green beizi jacket I used a dark red thread.  Which based on how thin the green silk blend fabric was, shows up if you look at the pressed seams closely.  I should have used a lighter color at least.

2.) Pinking seams is helpful.  Drop the money on a pair of pinking shears, even if you overcast seams, you will find it worth it.

3.) Doing a mock-up is essential for the neckline and armpit size check.  Cheap cotton muslin is fine for this, but make sure to do it.  If I went with the 1″ armpit curve as suggested in Hanfu Pattern Making, I’d be in trouble.  That book assumes some really small arm circumference.   I don’t think you’ll need a skirt mock-up, working on the bodice is likely sufficient.

4.) Make a single sleeve mock-up and see how it falls on your arm.  Again use scrap fabric or reuse the fabric from your mock up.

5.) I wish I had a rotary cutter.  Before I attempt my SQQ outfit, I’m going to purchase a mat and rotary cutter.  These garments require cutting out long pieces of fabric and it would have made cutting the sleeves out a lot easier.

6.) Don’t trust fabric that is under $20/meter or yard that is labeled by a shop as ‘hanfu’ fabric.  It will be a total pain in the bum to work with.  I’m specifically talking about this fabric. 

It was difficult to deal with, wrinkled easily, slippery and if you messed up and you had to rip out seams, looked clearly damaged from the previous line of sewing that you removed.

In hindsight, I should have dropped the extra few bucks for this fabric in green as well.  It was much more well behaved.  Or found another fabric at this price point.

7.) Be aware of the dimensions of your fabric.  This caught me with the red cotton calico fabric which was only 36″ wide from selvedge to selvedge and hanfu patterns seem to assume having at least 54″ if not 60″ wide bolts of fabric.  This bit me in the ass when I messed up the red layer cutting out the fabric.

8.) Bias tape is your friend!  On man, it really is with these lightweight fabrics as a good way to get them to hang better and to sew in those raw edges.

9.) Heat adhesive for the edge of the jacket was super helpful.  Having the invisible type allowed for it to hold the hem down and stay in place.

10.) Draft you patterns on wrapping paper with the grid.  The paper is a nice weight and you can write on it with 2B pencil, pen and marker as you develop and modify your pattern pieces.

11.) A straight ruler and curved ruler are all you actually need. Seriously, you can make all of your shapes with these two items.

[sapphire-wine]

The "unofficial wright little sister/daughter" trio: maya fey, ema skye, athena cykes

Maya and I are fake dating for a similar reason to why me and Mia would fake date which is it would piss a lot of people off and we are little shits. Literally the embodiment of *does a gay little dance to piss you off*. She would try to get me to watch Steel Samurai with her but I don't think I would be able to get into it, maybe though. I don't know if I would be able to handle our wedding being SS themed tho.

I was originally going to say slow burn with Ema Skye but we are both too much of an asshole to be anything but enemies-to-lovers lmao. However, as I said in the Klav section of the last ask game, I tell her that I can dissect a mouse in 10 minutes and do a qPCR (possibly with demonstration?) and she falls in love with me. She seems like she's very cocky with what she knows/doesn't know how to do and I've dealt with a lot of people like that who say they know how to do something but don't do it well. So I think we would butt heads with that at least a first.

Since I don't know Athena and we would have to age her up she gets left with slow burn. It would be a very slow burn. Is she actually a jock? I don't do anything like that. Also I feel like her hearing/widget would annoy me so the entire slowburn would be me trying to tolerate that lmao (slowburn with a touch of enemies to lovers perhaps)

[fishing-for-blood]

I was tagged by Zag @aroace-yuuji !! Thank you!!  I love when these things  don’t try to tell me I have to tag this # people because I never listen anyway. So uh, if you see this Ari I’d tag you but Zag already did, @itwasnot-a-phasemom @joyandeggs @ginrose19 @handlewcaare @chonzu if y’all want, if not no pressure cause like who needs that 

Name / Nickname: Sam

Gender / pronouns: Female she/her, but also I don’t mind any pronouns tbh

Star Sign: Virgo

Height: a little over 5′9″but I gotta wear 2″ boots so the world perceives me as 6′ this is mandatory 

Time: 10:52 am 

Birthday: August 27th 

Favourite bands: AEROSMITH, Led Zeppelin, White Stripes, Streetlight Manifesto, Kraftklub, Rage Against the Machine, Franz Ferdinand, Pink Floyd, Rammstein and a lot moreee

Favourite solo artists: ... Lindsey Stirling, Sim Gretina?? I don’t have any others??

Song stuck in my head: Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy - Queen

Last Movie: Still that French 1980s overly historically accurate french revolution movie asdfghjkl

Last Show:  legit do not remember

When did I create this blog?:  2013? 2014? Its been a minute

What do I post ?: I started as a DC/Riddler focused blog but now just like,,, whatever tickles my fancy and I apologize for this because I fancy a lot of bullshit

Last thing I googled: technically “VWR qPCR machine” cause I’m at work. Personally, tho “Black Knight Bowbenders shooting range”

Do I get asks: Here? Nope. My sideblogs? Occasionally. 

Why I chose my url: I like the song ‘Shopping for Blood’ by Franz Ferdinand, and I also like fish

Why I originally joined tumblr: DC Comics nerd shit

Why I stay: what I thought would be another throwaway side blog got really popular out of no where and now I have friends oops

Average hours of sleep: 6

Instruments: Violin and Guitar actually. Piano kinda. I just commissioned a Lyre bc I’m extra tho so add that to the list soon. I can play THREE songs on clarinet too so hey

What am I wearing ?: Black ‘Combat’ boots, black jeans, Blue&grey stripped shirt. Saftey pins as earrings. 

Dream job: Shark or Coral Immunologist *stares at exactly two new labs at my alma mater* I’m 3/4 of the way there pls

Dream trip: Germany Germany Germany Germany, but also I’m trying to hit up every national park in the US

Last book I read: ...Ovid’s Metamorphoses 

Favourite food: Sushi

Nationality: Philadelphian American 

Favourite Song: what question is this I cannot SIMPLY CHOOSE one? I’ll say When the Levee Breaks -Led Zeppelin for now ig 

Top three fictional universes: uhhh right now SUPERGIANT’S HADES, My Hero Academia, and One Punch Man 

[quester8888]

Scientists Say the COVID19 Test Kits Do Not Work, Are Worthless, and Give Impossible Results

RevealingFraud.com  Telling Truth ends up Revealing Fraud About/Contact Archives

Scientists Say the COVID19 Test Kits Do Not Work, Are Worthless, and Give Impossible Results

Posted byJason Hommel 21st March 2020 26 Commentson Scientists Say the COVID19 Test Kits Do Not Work, Are Worthless, and Give Impossible Results A pregnancy test is 99% accurate. The coronavirus spectrum test kit is 20% accurate or worse. If a test is only 20% accurate, is the better word “inaccurate”? Please take about 1 minute to at least glance at the bold copy. My prior article got 30,000+ views and was criticized for my commentary. Here is my limited comments: The CDC and FDA both admit the COVID19 test kits suffer from false positives and false negatives. They just fail to tell you those rates. But others have revealed those rates. “the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%” and 85% false negative rate. The test kits don’t work. If the test kits don’t work, or are less reliable than a coin flip, then all the data on “who has it” is utterly meaningless and it’s all a total fraud and hoax. People are still dying, but from the same illness as always: the flu. So, what follows is only exact quotes from the articles, and links. Below are 15 sources giving commentary on the reliability of the COVID19 test kits in use. From the maker of the test: “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit (CD019RT) Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.” https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm “The New York SARS-CoV-2 Real-time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive test results. However, in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for isolation of the patient, monitoring of household or other close contacts for symptoms, patient isolation that might limit contact with family or friends and may increase contact with other potentially COVID-19 patients, limits in the ability to work…” https://www.fda.gov/media/135662/download CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only… “Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. ” “Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection” “Inadequate or inappropriate specimen collection, storage, and transport are likely to yield false test results.” “The possibility of a false negative result should especially be considered if the patient’s recent exposures or clinical presentation suggest that 2019-nCoV infection is possible, and diagnostic tests for other causes of illness (e.g., other respiratory illness) are negative. If 2019-nCoV infection is still suspected, re-testing should be considered in consultation with public health authorities. “ ” Positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on prevalence. False negative test results are more likely when prevalence of disease is high. False positive test results are more likely when prevalence is moderate to low. “ https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download “Should I be testing all patients for COVID-19? Clinicians should base their decisions on whether a patient should be tested for COVID-19 on: - Signs and symptoms, - Local epidemiology, and - If the patient has had close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 patient or a history of travel from an area with sustained transmission within 14 days of symptom onset.” https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/tool-virus-requests.html https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32133832/ “Results: When the infection rate of the close contacts and the sensitivity and specificity of reported results were taken as the point estimates, the positive predictive value of the active screening was only 19.67%, in contrast, the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%. The multivariate-probabilistic sensitivity analysis results supported the base-case findings, with a 75% probability for the false-positive rate of positive results over 47%. Conclusions: In the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the ‘asymptomatic infected individuals’ reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives. “ . https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/32133832/_ —– “Nearly 10 percent of the human genome is made of bits of virus DNA. For the most part, this viral DNA is not harmful. In some cases, scientists are finding, it actually has a beneficial impact.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161128151050.htm —– “For context, Goodman says a “really good” r-squared, in terms of public health data, would be a 0.7. “Anything like 0.99,” she said, “would make me think that someone is simulating data. It would mean you already know what is going to happen.”” https://www.barrons.com/articles/chinas-economic-data-have-always-raised-questions-its-coronavirus-numbers-do-too-51581622840 —– ” There’s no evidence the PCR test is even being used at all! “ “PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome. The problem is the test is known not to work. It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery. Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.” https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/blog/coronavirus-hoax-jan-2020 “The Test is Not Binary Tests for infections are usually reported as positive or negative (sometimes ‘reactive’ and ‘unreactive’. One of the reasons for this is that, in many cases, multiple tests are required, and it is common to conclude that someone is infected with some negative tests and that someone is uninfected with some positive tests. The results of a complex multi-test algorithm are also usually reported as positive or negative, but interpreted by doctors and patients as infected or uninfected. ” But, in reality even individual tests are not binary, not positive or negative, but a range of numbers that are arbitrarily divided into positive on one side and negative on the other. Possibly there is a grey area that allows other factors, including the bias of the doctor or laboratory, to enter into the interpretation, or that will require further testing. “ “Positive to Negative and Back Again The majority of the 18 patients had a positive test, followed by a negative test, followed by a positive test. Some had this several times. If a negative test means uninfected, then this is impossible. You cannot rid yourself of the virus, and then be reinfected the next day, and then infected the day after and uninfected again. The simplest answer to this conundrum is that negative tests do not mean uninfected. But the corollary is that positive tests do not mean infected. Which would make the test worthless.” https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/does-2019-coronavirus-exist Stanford epidemiologist warns that coronavirus crackdown is based on bad data https://www.thecollegefix.com/stanford-epidemiologist-warns-that-coronavirus-crackdown-is-based-on-bad-data/ “If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to ‘influenza-like illness’ would not seem unusual this year.“ “Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes.” George Avery • 3 days ago I am an epidemiologist and health services researcher, one with particular expertise and experience in public health emergency preparedness. I have been saying the same thing as John – I spoke for about 45 minutes last week with a reporter from ProPublica, trying to explain the concept of ascertainment bias and why the case fatality rates being tossed about were horribly exaggerated. Frankly, the real impact from a health standpoint in the US was likely to be no worse than the 1956 or 1968 influenza epidemics, even without the extreme measures. In fact, we are reaching a point where the long-term damage from the panic-driven response may well be worse than the impact of the disease. Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology VirusGuy: Some notes on those test kits I saw you asking about on Twitter yesterday. They don’t do antibody tests. They do a thing called PCR testing, which basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome. The problem is the test is known to be bullshit. It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery. Secondly, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues. All these Mickey Mouse test kits being sent out to hospitals do at best is tell the analysts you have some viral DNA in your cells. Which most of us do, most of the time. It may tell you the viral sequence is related to a specific type of virus – say the huge family of coronavirus. But that’s all. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like covi-19 is utter bullshit. And that’s not even getting into the other issue – viral load. If you remember the PCR works by amplifying minute amounts of DNA. It therefore is useless at telling you how much virus you may have. And that’s the only question that really matters when it comes to diagnosing illness. Like I said, everyone will have a few virus kicking round in their system at any time, and most will not cause illness because their quantities are too small. For a virus to sicken you you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if a osteogenesis is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you. If you feel sick and get a PCR test any random virus DNA might be identified even if they aren’t at all invo lved in your sickness. Leading to false diagnosis. And coronavirus are incredibly common. A large percentage of the world human population will have covi DNA in them in small quantities even if they are perfectly well or sick with some other pathogen. Do you see where this is going yet? If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus. They are incredibly common and there’s tons of them. A very high percentage of people sick by other means (flu, bacterial pneumonia, anything) will have a positive PCR test for covi even if you’re doing them properly and ruling out contamination, simply because covis are so common. There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time. All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a corona virus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease. Since you already selected the sickest flu cases a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die. You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on. Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist. Now just run the same scam in other countries. Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically. Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen but just regular sick people you are mislabelling – your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic. But you can stop people pointing this out in several ways. 1. You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead. 2. You can tell people that ‘minimising’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers. 3. You can talk bullshittery about r0 numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience 4. You can start testing well people (who of course will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptomless cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen Take these simple steps and you can have your own entirely manufactured pandemic up and running in weeks. But why are you doing this people may ask. Lots of reasons. Fear is useful. And a population frightened into demanding protection will accept anything you do to ‘protect’ them, up to and including nailing them into their own houses. It can be a trial run for social control methods. To see how gullible populations are. To enforce more rigorous censorship. To inure people to shortage and uncertainty. All these things and others are reasons. But getting hung up on possible motive misses the point – that all the evidence points to this being the case. Everything I am seeing points at a fake manufactured pandemic. The low numbers and attempts to inflate them with scary anecdotes and bad science, the crazy overreaction in world governments, as if the reaction itself is the point. The ridiculous numbers of famous people ‘testing positive’. It could easily be done and it looks as if it is. In my view. But you must make up your own mind. I think many in the virology and epidemiology line would agree, but no one is going to risk their career right now saying so in public. They might as well jump off of a brid ge. You can verify everything I have said about the PCR test. Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. “The accuracy of the current COVID-19 tests is not precisely known.” The accuracy of COVID-19 tests RICHARD L. HUTCHISON, MD | CONDITIONS | MARCH 12, 2020 https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2020/03/the-accuracy-of-covid-19-tests.html ” As a physician, I treat the results of lab tests like I treat movie recommendations from a friend – I am always skeptical. “ “My friend’s movie judgments are occasionally biased and off-kilter.  In the same way, medical diagnostic test results are not perfect. There is always the chance that they provide incorrect information. Medical professionals, policymakers, and members of the general public may overestimate the accuracy of diagnostic tests.  The usefulness of any test depends on how likely the patient has the disease, the ability of the test to correctly identify the disease, and the capability of the test to correctly confirm the condition is not present. Unfortunately, test results will be negative for some people that actually have the disease, and some people without the disease will have positive tests.” “ The accuracy of the current COVID-19 tests is not precisely known.  Reasonable estimates, based on test performance in China and the performance of the influenza tests, are that the tests will correctly identify around 60 percent of the patients with the disease and correctly identify 90 percent of the patients that are disease-free. “ ” Assume that the physician thinks there is a 50 percent of the patient having COVID-19.  Given Read the full article

[agadignostic1]

What are multiplex tests and their advantages?

Separating the individual assays into different spaces (spatial separation) or immobilising antibodies onto different beads based on what they target are the two main ways to multiplex test an immunoassay.

Multiplex test PCR necessitates two or more pairs of primers in the reaction, allowing for the amplification of multiple genes in a single reaction. A single test run may provide additional information that would otherwise require multiple reagents and more time to complete. Multiplex-PCR can be used to detect different serotypes of Shiga toxin-producing bacteria, for example.

 Why use a multiplex assay?

Of course, the main benefit of a multiplex assay is that it allows you to analyze multiple proteins at once rather than having to run multiple assays to look for each protein individually.

Running different assays means there may be minor differences in each run, which could affect the results. Running a single assay prevents this variation from having a major impact, so any differences in protein levels are more likely to represent true relative abundance inside the samples.

Advantages of multiplexing

 By measuring the expression of more than one gene in a qPCR reaction with a multiplex test, you can minimize the amount of sample needed for a qPCR reaction. The method is as delicate and precise as single-gene amplified (also known as singleplex), but it is more technically difficult.

Multiplexing has other benefits in addition to conserving the amount of precious samples. The first is a cost-cutting strategy. When you amplify two or more genes in the same well, you save money on reagents and time spent setting up experiments and analysing results.

Second, multiple gene amplification in the same well increases accuracy by reducing pipetting errors. Small differences in sample and reagent quantities in each well will not cause problems if the genes to be compared are amplified in the same wells.

If you are also looking for multiplex tests, then you should contact AG Plus Diagnostics. This is one of the reliable places for getting the best for multiplex tests.

Do you want to know more about AG Plus Diagnostics and their services for multiplex tests? Please visit the following link;

https://agplusdiagnostics.com/.

 I hope you enjoyed reading my article. If you found it informative then, please let me know in the comment section. I am open to any type of questions, suggestions, and feedback. Please write them into the comment box.

Thank you!

Have a nice day!!!!

[radjoy]

Okay I wrote like tons in a fit of academic rage Monday evening and I think I sound a little insane so I would just like to preface this by saying: I understand movie magic, and real science honestly would not make for very good TV, and I think this is maybe just a trend- it’s probably never very fun to watch TV shows about your job, because the accurate stuff is boring and the inaccurate stuff is irritating. So I get it. That being said:

“scanning electron microscope” is a cool phrase to say, so it sounds good on TV, but it’s not easy to prepare samples for, especially if you don’t do it often, and there’s frequently a better way to do whatever you need accomplished. Literally my protocol for prepping SEM samples has been passed down thru lab techs with more secrecy than a family recipe, and I’ve been at talks where people would stop the presenter to ask who did the SEM images and what their protocol was.

In general it’s like- okay, if they had a SEM with EDX then sure, they could ID metal from it. But you usually have to take cross sections, so the show is asking me to believe that they 1. Have a fucking scanning electron microscope (not likely) with EDX (even less likely), 2. Can use it on a whim and don’t have to share it (when normally multiple labs will pitch in to purchase expensive equipment like that and charge for other labs to use it and require advance booking), 3. The sample was read properly the first time even though the forensic tech rarely does this (lmao I wish), and 4. They were allowed to cut up evidence from their murder scene (seems not right but what do I know), when they could have just....... used any other method to ID metal? SEM is really better at looking for tiny things and imaging because you want pretty pictures to publish your manuscript in Nature.

And then in a different ep they turn around and go “here’s how we identified a mysterious virus within one workday” like, hold on, slow your roll! I work in clinical/diagnostic and research micro, and to ID what’s making someone sick we 1) take a sample, 2) put it onto a variety of different agar plates (some of which only allow certain bugs to grow), 3) incubate it overnight MINIMUM and 4) MALDI it the next day. That’s for bacteria, which will grow easy peasy, and it’s still a 24 hour turnaround time. Viruses, you need to infect a cell culture with them to grow them up before you can try testing them.

I, personally, sometimes make a visual ID from a plate, even though we’re not supposed to. But I’m a bacteriologist. I study bacteria all day every day, so, I can look at a plate and call it as strep or staph or bacillus and be right. But I couldn’t differentiate staph aureus from staph epi. You can get genus, but not species. But if I didn’t do this all day every day, I wouldn’t even be able to do that. I have a specialized skill. Somehow, their singular forensic tech has 15,000 specialized skills.

And even when they already have the sample - in the NCIS episode Bete Noir, within one workday they manage to find a sample of smallpox, and ID it. They appear to make a visual ID, which is generally unacceptable in micro, but I’ll let it go since they were in a hurry. The problem is you can’t make a visual ID of smallpox. 

This is smallpox:

This is monkeypox:

They look identical! You simply cannot make a visual id for variola virus.

Now, maybe they could tell it was an orthopox, and just assumed that it was smallpox since it was bioterrorism. Except, they LITERALLY NAME THE SPECIES. The ONLY way that they could know that within a day is if they did a qPCR, an ELISA, flow cytometry, or a hemagglutination test. Those could all be finished within a couple hours, but they all require you to already have special virus-specific primers, or plates, or antibodies. All of which would require special ordering (and prompt a LOT of questions) if you tried to use them to ID smallpox. I can explain how these work if you like but the bottom line is you need to know what you EXPECT to see, and you need to have supplies for what you expect to see. Nobody has smallpox primers just in their lab freezer, especially since it’s considered eradicated. It’s like calling animal control to ask for tips on capturing a saber-tooth tiger. You would get FAR more questions than answers.

And the most infuriating thing about that episode is how they throw the forensic tech in a hazmat suit! Those are only required at biosafety level 4, which is needed for the smallpox virus, since it can be aerosolized and there’s no treatment and nobody is vaccinated. But she does not have a BSL-4 lab. She should NOT BE TOUCHING THAT SAMPLE. The idea is that you have a positive pressure hazmat suit, with separate air, so you are in a “cold” (pathogen-free) zone. The air outside the suit, where you’re dealing with the sample, is “hot” (considered to contain pathogens). So this woman’s entire lab is now a hot zone. In a real BSL-4 lab, this wouldn’t be a problem - BSL-4 labs are set up for this. Cold air comes in, hot air gets filtered. There are airlocks at every entrance, so the suit can be decontaminated before you take it off, so you don’t get exposed to it. Her lab doesn’t have that!! It has a fucking automatic door! It has shared ventilation with the rest of the building!

so now I’m watching this epsiode like NOW YOU JUST GAVE YOUR WHOLE BUILDING SMALLPOX.

And then- How are they going to decon that room? BSL-4 labs are required to have smooth, rounded corners and seamless equipment so they can be sprayed down. Her lab doesn’t. Everything in a BSL-4 zone needs to be autoclaved or chemically sterilized. All those TVs in her lab are going to be useless now after we have to put them in a pressure cooker for an hour!

And, in the show, that character has a master’s degree. No disrespect to people with masters’ degrees, but you need a PhD in microbiology and intense training before anyone is going to let you near a BSL-4 bug. It’s like if you were watching a medical show and halfway through neurosurgery the doctor stopped, spat into the open surgical site, then looked at a first year med student and asked if they wanted to give it a whirl. Like, it would obviously take you out of the moment! That’s what watching CSI is like for me now.

A couple small things: for some reason, in these shows, everyone can do everything. Everyone’s an expert in everything. That is one thing I like about Bones - they have like 7 scientists to spread the work over and they work in a large research building that I can believe would have a lot of equipment.

Also, like. Sometimes the characters will be working in a hood without wearing a lab coat, which is absolutely not allowed. It’s like...... what is the cabinet even for then, dumbass, if you’re just going to be putting your gross non-sterile hands into it?

I have more specific issues, and we can totally DM if you want to hear more of my nitpicking, but in general, I’ve noticed the big three are:

Show vastly overestimates the amount of equipment the characters would have the access/ability to use.

Show vastly over/under estimates the amount of time it takes to perform a test (if you’re looking for it, DNA tests will take either 48 hours or 40 minutes, depending on what the plot needs).

Show ascribes superhuman expertise to the characters. Like, people study for YEARS to be able to do these things, and we can’t do it all.

PERSONAL. PROTECTIVE. EQUIPMENT. Your scientists should ALWAYS be wearing closed toed shoes, long pants, and have their hair up. I’ll admit a lab coat and safety glasses are not taken as seriously, I rarely wear them, but pants are non-negotiable.

my degree and job experience have totally ruined crime shows for me. they’re like “i used a scanning electron microscope on this piece of metal” and im like as if YOU have a SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE. 

[crispysnakes]

Don’t get me wrong, when I hear people brag about how much they make in sales on only a couple snakes and they produce a lot, it’s like bro... it sounds like you have the resources, what’s the reasoning here? Those with only a handful of boas as well, it would be way easier. Arena transmission is primarily vertical (breeding) in boas, so if the parents are clean the offspring will be clean, unless you have significant cross contamination from a positive animal to the babies somewhere. There’s some debate on how to treat asymptomatic carriers (let live as pets, re-home as pets, euthanize) as they can live normal lives without ever shedding the virus, but that can be a post for a later date.

Arenavirus will knock out your BPs in months so I probably wouldn’t test anything other than new arrivals for it. Nido would be more of a concern with pythons since they are the asymptomatic carrier there, and the spread seems to be cross contamination instead of breeding.   

And yeah, I’ve heard of breeders being uncomfortable selling to folks who test. Even with breeders who will test upon request, the lab they use may not be up to par. I paid extra to have a snake tested prior to being shipped and it turned out they used a random, questionable diagnostic lab. I retested that animal through UF and it couldn’t pass a qPCR... viral load in the millions, and I had to put that animal down. Between inconsistency in testing, unanswered questions about the virus, and the hobby’s blase attitude towards it, the whole situation is a mess. 

Besides yourself, do you know of any other boa breeders who test their animals before putting them up for sale?

I only know of a few. 

Scarlet & Gray Exotics , Matt Cook Reptiles, Smith Family Boa Constrictors.