Stang: remember studies on RT-PCR test & false positives linked to high cycle counts & inability to transmit COVID, "The performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2"
Stang: remember studies on RT-PCR test & false positives linked to high cycle counts & inability to transmit COVID, "The performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2"
SEMINAL study on PCR test: Only 40.6% of positive tests showed Ct values below the threshold of 25, indicating a likelihood of the person being infectious
Setting aside the iffy PCR cycle rate and it's lack of certainty as a test, it must also be of note what sequence the currently used pcrs are attempting to amplify. In the beginning it was parts of the spike but when omicron appeared that was because of a dropout.i believe they are now selecting other parts of the virus, which are likely to have significant overlap with any variant within the coronavirus swarm. Given the sheer number of potential coronaviruses which might elicit a match, the whole endeavor is pointless.
By now we know that PCR tests are virtually useless! Many early tests were run at 40 cycles, and some at 44 were reportedly being done. But even at very low cycles, these tests are still totally incapable of DIAGNOSING the presence of any disease because they cannot differentiate between "live", "replication-competent" intact viruses and dead viruses or even just viral fragments, nor can they quantify how many viruses are present in a given sample. As it takes a certain threshold number of live viruses to initiate an infection, even if some are shown to be present, that doesn't mean that there are enough to cause illness. Likewise, the tests cannot determine if a person is contageous/infectious if they have, or if they have recovered from, COVID.
So what good ARE they? They do an excellent job of bamboozling ignorant members of the public, the media, and ignorant doctors and other medical personnel into believing that there is a certain "caseload" of COVID. By massively exaggerating the numbers, a "pandemic" magically gets created out of thin air, the government gets away with declaring an emergency, lockdowns and business closures (ONLY small businesses, of course: never the Walmarts!), school closures, and gets people scared into taking untested genetic modificatiin drugs with no informed consent, making many billions of dollars for the "vaccine" companies.
"...there is no international standardization across laboratories, rendering problematic the interpretation of RT-PCR tests when used as a tool for mass screening." Problematic is a nice way of saying the inflated case #s stemming from ridiculously high cycle thresholds were crucial for establishing the pretext for all the draconian, unprecedented, and utterly fraudulent policies imposed on the whole of humanity, with few exceptions in those countries that refused to buy in to the fear porn. The highjacking of Kerry Mullis' Nobel-winning work (i.e., using it as a diagnostic tool) will go down as one of the most bogus perversions of otherwise solid scientific-analytical achievement in all of science history with consequences that can only be called utterly catastrophic to humanity. Which was exactly what they intended of course.
I'm just a non scientist poor in math....do not understand what you are saying here ! All I know is that Dr. Kary Mullis the guy who got the nobel prize for the RT PCR said it should never be used as a diagnostic tool....yet they shut the world down using this test! And apparently it cannot tell the difference from a cold, flu, influenza or covid! PLANDEMIC is what I believe!
Asymptomatic CoVid was just an excuse for positive PCR results in people who had zero or only very vague mild symptoms. PCR is simply an analytical laboratory tool and has no diagnostic specificity. Even worse the primers used in the PCR “test” were obtained from Chinese in silico genomic sequencing methods which ignore controls and purification steps. It was all one gigantic fraud.
The true scientific method from a non-professional: Perform about a dozen PCR trials from different labs around the world each using about 100,000 people and using a similar control group. Sort of a RCT or randomized control trial. Test for covid at various cycles and record all data. You want to know at what cycle threshold the PRC test accurately presents a covid response. Or, if it is even useful for testing for covid factors. This trial could have been done in a month or less and then we could set a standard for testing. Of course, these trials presume that they even know what results they are looking at are actually covid viruses.
Nothing even close to this was done and no standards set. Imagine your doctor testing for cholesterol markers and not having any threshold values to compare the test results with. Until there is standardization of PRC for covid or any of its presumed variants, it is a nonsensical exercise in invading our rights and in invading our bodies.
My lab had approximately half a dozen different covid EUA PCR flatforms utilizing a variety of targets and the Ct for a 'detected' result was typically extremely high (40-50). The Ct was NEVER a part of the report, so clinicians had no idea if the result was 'super hot' or 'likely false positive'--and I must add, most doctors & administrators didn't seem to care if that information was on the patient's chart. At all! A *lot of dubious decisions* were made--worldwide-- from assumptions and kowtowing to authorities.
Setting aside the iffy PCR cycle rate and it's lack of certainty as a test, it must also be of note what sequence the currently used pcrs are attempting to amplify. In the beginning it was parts of the spike but when omicron appeared that was because of a dropout.i believe they are now selecting other parts of the virus, which are likely to have significant overlap with any variant within the coronavirus swarm. Given the sheer number of potential coronaviruses which might elicit a match, the whole endeavor is pointless.
By now we know that PCR tests are virtually useless! Many early tests were run at 40 cycles, and some at 44 were reportedly being done. But even at very low cycles, these tests are still totally incapable of DIAGNOSING the presence of any disease because they cannot differentiate between "live", "replication-competent" intact viruses and dead viruses or even just viral fragments, nor can they quantify how many viruses are present in a given sample. As it takes a certain threshold number of live viruses to initiate an infection, even if some are shown to be present, that doesn't mean that there are enough to cause illness. Likewise, the tests cannot determine if a person is contageous/infectious if they have, or if they have recovered from, COVID.
So what good ARE they? They do an excellent job of bamboozling ignorant members of the public, the media, and ignorant doctors and other medical personnel into believing that there is a certain "caseload" of COVID. By massively exaggerating the numbers, a "pandemic" magically gets created out of thin air, the government gets away with declaring an emergency, lockdowns and business closures (ONLY small businesses, of course: never the Walmarts!), school closures, and gets people scared into taking untested genetic modificatiin drugs with no informed consent, making many billions of dollars for the "vaccine" companies.
"...there is no international standardization across laboratories, rendering problematic the interpretation of RT-PCR tests when used as a tool for mass screening." Problematic is a nice way of saying the inflated case #s stemming from ridiculously high cycle thresholds were crucial for establishing the pretext for all the draconian, unprecedented, and utterly fraudulent policies imposed on the whole of humanity, with few exceptions in those countries that refused to buy in to the fear porn. The highjacking of Kerry Mullis' Nobel-winning work (i.e., using it as a diagnostic tool) will go down as one of the most bogus perversions of otherwise solid scientific-analytical achievement in all of science history with consequences that can only be called utterly catastrophic to humanity. Which was exactly what they intended of course.
I'm just a non scientist poor in math....do not understand what you are saying here ! All I know is that Dr. Kary Mullis the guy who got the nobel prize for the RT PCR said it should never be used as a diagnostic tool....yet they shut the world down using this test! And apparently it cannot tell the difference from a cold, flu, influenza or covid! PLANDEMIC is what I believe!
Thank you for all that you do!
Asymptomatic CoVid was just an excuse for positive PCR results in people who had zero or only very vague mild symptoms. PCR is simply an analytical laboratory tool and has no diagnostic specificity. Even worse the primers used in the PCR “test” were obtained from Chinese in silico genomic sequencing methods which ignore controls and purification steps. It was all one gigantic fraud.
The true scientific method from a non-professional: Perform about a dozen PCR trials from different labs around the world each using about 100,000 people and using a similar control group. Sort of a RCT or randomized control trial. Test for covid at various cycles and record all data. You want to know at what cycle threshold the PRC test accurately presents a covid response. Or, if it is even useful for testing for covid factors. This trial could have been done in a month or less and then we could set a standard for testing. Of course, these trials presume that they even know what results they are looking at are actually covid viruses.
Nothing even close to this was done and no standards set. Imagine your doctor testing for cholesterol markers and not having any threshold values to compare the test results with. Until there is standardization of PRC for covid or any of its presumed variants, it is a nonsensical exercise in invading our rights and in invading our bodies.
My lab had approximately half a dozen different covid EUA PCR flatforms utilizing a variety of targets and the Ct for a 'detected' result was typically extremely high (40-50). The Ct was NEVER a part of the report, so clinicians had no idea if the result was 'super hot' or 'likely false positive'--and I must add, most doctors & administrators didn't seem to care if that information was on the patient's chart. At all! A *lot of dubious decisions* were made--worldwide-- from assumptions and kowtowing to authorities.