Jump to content

Dguy210

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    3,076
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Dguy210 last won the day on September 7 2016

Dguy210 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,797 Excellent

1 Follower

About Dguy210

  • Rank
    Service Manual Technician
  • Birthday January 7

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Near Oregon City
  • Cars
    '74 4dr B210, '71 1200 (KA24E swap), '72 510 4dr (project), 2015 Leaf, 2014 Sienna, '97 F150 4x4
  • Interests
    Cars and Beer.
  • Occupation
    Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Did you read the article or just go off the title? Because I know I always take drug advice from law professors who have just had brain surgery.
  2. It's all for the clicks and the money. Hate and fear are strong emotions to get people's attention so the media does all it can to keep the shit stirred to generate revenue. I haven't' confirmed this but I definitely feel like Trump may have been the best thing possible money wise for much of the media as it gets them attention and viewers.
  3. I'm assuming "...mean it's not a hoax any more?" is in reference to this below: What's funny is the Trump never said it was a hoax. The media reported that "Trump called coronavirus a hoax" but it was not what was said at all. There is a reason the MSM gets referred to as "Fake News", they just outright lie. If you see the phrase "anonymous source familiar with [his] thinking" that means they likely made some bullshit up. I'd personally be much more forgiving of what the MSM reported such as CNN if they didn't lie or purposely misinterpret stuff all the damn time. This is one of many many instances. Even the incredibly left biased Snopes backs this up: "In context, Trump did not say...that the virus itself was a hoax. He instead said that Democrats’ criticism of his administration’s response to it was a hoax." What was actually said (Feb 2020): Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa, they can’t even count. No they can’t. They can’t count their votes. One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people [cases of coronavirus infection] in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that. Sources: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/democratic-ad-twists-trumps-hoax-comment/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/03/02/fact-check-did-trump-call-coronavirus-a-hoax/
  4. You ever yell at the people during a horror movie not to handle the idiot ball and go into the darkened house or ignore the monster once it is on the ground? This is my version of that for this video.
  5. Unless you are in your 70s and extremely unhealthy you are more likely to suffer serious complications from some home brewed experimental stuff than you are from Covid.
  6. The RT-PCR test is ABLE to detect COVID. The test can give a false positive due to interpretation of the results and is biased towards failing in such a way that it DOES give a false positive. In short it is a decent "quick and dirty test" but has serious problems if that is the ONLY test you use or if you only test the patient once.
  7. Also for the PCR. This is an RNA virus, they use RT-PCR to detect it against using 3 different specific primer-probe pairs to structural genes (from memory I think they were nucleocapsid genes but I'd have to go look it up again). I have done shit tons of RT-PCR and RNA work (literally half my thesis was on this). IF you run a PCR reaction out past about 25 or so cycles on average you will get some signal just from plain replication errors, primer-dimers, non-specific signal and other crap. Hence the reason they use a probe setup, this is more specific and ideally you would want to see all 3 genes be positive. However, having done absolutely craploads of this type of stuff, including designing my own probe and primer sets, once you get past about 30 cycles it gets real iffy if I would call a positive signal a true signal. I personally have seen to many times were you can get a positive signal if you just run it long enough. This is why a negative and positive control are usually run also, if you see signal in just a negative water sample for instance you would get very suspicious of either contamination or some other error. HOWEVER, this also depends a lot on which primer/probe sets are used, they have to all be independently verified and some work super well and some are kind of garbage. Generally, I would get very dubious of results out around 30+ cycles of amplification without a lot of independent verification that this was a real signal and not just an artifact. As I have not run the specific CDC primer/probe sets myself I can't say specifically for them. I would say if I started seeing "positive" results (CT) at 40 cycles I would be very suspicious it was an artifact. I looked up the instructions, from their own data they "CT" cross the threshold around mid 20 cycles and plateau in about the 30s cycles with 45 cycles total. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD EXPECT from this type of test and fits very nicely with general practices and my extensive experience. (PAGE 33) However, you then get to page 35 on how to interpret the results and you see why they have gone with a "failsafe" approach that over reports positive values: Short form is they say 1. even if your internal control (RNase P) detection (i.e., your "experiment" worked correctly) FAILS but you still have a positive result on the 2 covid genes you call it a POSITIVE result (THIS WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE ELSEWHERE). 2. Any fluorescence under 40 cycles is to be counted as positive (THIS WOULD ALSO BE UNACCEPTABLE ELSEWHERE). In short the test instructions are designed to fail positive. Ideally, any weirdness and you would retest if still enough sample or retest the patient. But the test is inherently flawed on the science end. They have designated ANY positive amount and you would call the patient a positive sample. So my faith in the validity of the test can be called into question as it appears to ride more on policy and appeasement then the actual science. As an initial diagnostic this is fine, but the allowed range to call something positive is fucking garbage. Here is the full bit:  All clinical samples should exhibit fluorescence growth curves in the RNase P reaction that cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct), thus indicating the presence of the human RNase P gene. Failure to detect RNase P in any clinical specimens may indicate: − Improper extraction of nucleic acid from clinical materials resulting in loss of RNA and/or RNA degradation. − Absence of sufficient human cellular material due to poor collection or loss of specimen integrity. − Improper assay set up and execution. − Reagent or equipment malfunction.  If the RP assay does not produce a positive result for human clinical specimens, interpret as follows: − If the 2019-nCoV N1 and N2are positive even in the absence of a positive RP, the result should be considered valid. It is possible, that some samples may fail to exhibit RNase P growth curves due to low cell numbers in the original clinical sample. A negative RP signal does not preclude the presence of 2019-nCoV virus RNA in a clinical specimen. − If all 2019-nCoV markers AND RNase P are negative for the specimen, the result should be considered invalid for the specimen. If residual specimen is available, repeat the extraction procedure and repeat the test. If all markers remain negative after re-test, report the results as invalid and a new specimen should be collected if possible CDC RT-PCR original testing info: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/testing.html Instructions for test: https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
  8. That's not exactly how false positives work though. Because the disease is rare it is actually much worse, let's say you have a disease that 1 in 10,000 people actually have. Let's say you then test a 1,000,000 people with a false positive rate of 2% you'll end up with a total of 20,099 people who test positive out of your sample of 1 million. But of those people who test positive only 100 people actually have the infection and you've just scared and quarantined 19,999 people unnecessarily. Now let's run those numbers with a disease that is 1 in 1000 out of a million, you get 21,000 people who test positive and only 1,000 who actually have it, once again you just scared 20,000 people and only 1 in 20 of your tests was actually correct. So let's take this back to your original number of 2% false positive in a 1000 people and say 1 in 1000 people have the disease. Congratulations you just measured 21 people as positive, 1 actually has it and 20 of the tests are false. THIS IS WHY a 2% FALSE POSITIVE rate is fucking horrible. So to put that in context per CDC 4.8% of people tested test positive. I have doubts about doublecounting etc... but let's assume that number is correct and we will round to 5% to make the math easier. Now from this article he says the false positive rate is about 2%. So of all the people tested 2% will show a false positive, but about 5% of tested patients test positive that means for every 5 people who test positive 2 are a false positive because it is based off TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS. In other words 40% of the people told they tested positive given a 2% false positive are not actually positive. THAT IS A SHITSHOW
  9. Update. Not much has changed. Put a new radiator in it back in 2018 and just been driving it. Other than normal maintenance that has been it. Took it for a 3+hr drive to Bend area and camping trip in the dirt a couple weeks ago. Slogged it around, got it dirty, and packed it full of camping gear. Other than an occasional whine in 5th on the 63a and the seats falling apart a bit more just keep driving it.
  10. Modding the crossmember really is the more elegant way to do it. Basically, you made a 1980+ 1200 ute crossmember.
  11. Yeah, I was stoked. I had texted the guy for the engine bay pic to confirm and talked to him for a bit. If it had been cheaper, or maybe not so beat on, or somewhat closer I probably would have tried to buy it back as I never wanted it sold in the first place. I was very surprised to see a lot of the original stuff still on it.
  12. Holy necro thread. But to update I did actually find this car again back in March. Still running and driving around the San Francisco bay area 13 yrs after it was sold, more beat up than when I had it but with the same wheels amazingly. Guy was trying to sell it for $3500 which seemed a bit much and too far away, he wanted to get a family car. Looks like the same engine (A14) too, although the fucky wiring is not my doing at all.
  13. Damn, that's a lot of work to do an A14 swap. Does look very stock though. My old redneck ass just use to do them with about 20 minutes and a couple pieces of angle iron or barstock and call it good. 🤣
  14. Thankfully, not quite that far out, border of level 3 ended up being pretty much on my doorstep though. Shit has been crazy, last week was very stressful. Everything much better now. But between evacuation packing, shitty air, and keeping an ear to the scanner been less than fun.
  15. Honestly I hate theft. In fact I would be perfectly fine with shooting someone trying to rob me. Police defunding goal is nothing about getting rid of the police in reality, they just want to replace the police with their own morality policing based system. This is just the Russian Revolution happening all over again.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.