CDC Busted for inflating death numbers

[Bob Blaylock]

It's not an exaggeration because those were legitimate cases, even if they're no longer infectious. The only question is if the reporting indicates the current infected total, which it doesn't and shouldn't. Excluding people from the counts is not scientifically ethical. It attempts to misleadingly downplay the risk. We don't know when they were infected, so the only reasonable thing to do is report them when discovered since that is the only factual date you have.

Again, you are in no position to cast stones at anyone's ethics.

The way that the numbers are being used, the way that you are defending them being used, is deliberately misleading and deceptive.

Some times, the most powerful lie is a partial truth, told out of context, and this is a fine example of that.

We're supposed to be frightened into submission, by statistics that willfully include counts of those who do not contribute at all to the threat of which we are supposed to be frightened.

 

[colfax_m]

It's not an exaggeration because those were legitimate cases, even if they're no longer infectious. The only question is if the reporting indicates the current infected total, which it doesn't and shouldn't. Excluding people from the counts is not scientifically ethical. It attempts to misleadingly downplay the risk. We don't know when they were infected, so the only reasonable thing to do is report them when discovered since that is the only factual date you have.

Again, you're in no position to cast stones at anyone's eth8ics.

The way that the numbers are being used, the way that you are defending them being used, is deliberately misleading and deceptive.

Some times, the most powerful lie is a partial truth, told out of context, and this is a fine example of that.

Not really. We can't arbitrarily throw cases out because you want to downplay the pandemic, which is what you're suggesting.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not really. We can't arbitrarily throw cases out because you want to downplay the pandemic, which is what you're suggesting.

What you are defending is willfully, deliberately and dishonestly, including cases that exaggerate the fake “pandemic”.

 

[colfax_m]

Not really. We can't arbitrarily throw cases out because you want to downplay the pandemic, which is what you're suggesting.

What you are defending is willfully, deliberately and dishonestly, including cases that exaggerate the fake “pandemic”.

There's been 26 million diagnosed cases of COVID in this country. Not even your own statements in this thread contradict that number. Those infections occur, your only nit pick is that they did not all occur at the time the test turned positive.

But there's still been 26 million cases.

That's not a fake pandemic.

 

[danielpalos]

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

The larger the numbers they can get away with claiming, the greater the fearmongering.

View attachment 452914

Why bother with the fear mongering of alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror? The 1918 flu killed more people than WWI. Don't be "big chickens" right wingers, cut the Cost of Big Government nanny-Statism!

 

[Briss]

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

Now you know as well as I do that anyone listening to the daily propaganda about case numbers would infer that a case indicates a sick people. But that's a lie.

So tell me, why wasn't clinical observation included in the diagnosis of a positive PCR test result.

And I don't recall any of the professional liars telling anyone that a positive test result doesn't mean you're infectious? So, basing a pandemic on such a thing is not professional; it's kind of criminal . . .

And why will you take the "vaccine"? It doesn't stop transmission.

It's propaganda to report the number of infections? I think the propaganda is trying to tell people that the testing is false, as this thread is attempting to do.

These are real cases whether they're identified during or after their infectious period.

There's plenty of reason to base a pandemic on what we're seeing, this conversation is little more than a footnote for the deniers to cling to as it suits their agenda.

I already took the vaccine. If all it does is substantially reduce the transmission, that's a considerable benefit. I don't expect anything to ever work 100% of the time. That's not realistic. Saying it won't "stop" the transmission isn't a realistic criticism.

You're getting there, but you're still not getting it. I believe that if you do a little research, you'll find that no one--not the FDA, not the CDC, and not even the manufacturer--has claimed that the "vaccine" stops transmission. If you believe that they have, why don't you provide proof of it? If you can't, stop making claims that aren't true.

 

[colfax_m]

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

Now you know as well as I do that anyone listening to the daily propaganda about case numbers would infer that a case indicates a sick people. But that's a lie.

So tell me, why wasn't clinical observation included in the diagnosis of a positive PCR test result.

And I don't recall any of the professional liars telling anyone that a positive test result doesn't mean you're infectious? So, basing a pandemic on such a thing is not professional; it's kind of criminal . . .

And why will you take the "vaccine"? It doesn't stop transmission.

It's propaganda to report the number of infections? I think the propaganda is trying to tell people that the testing is false, as this thread is attempting to do.

These are real cases whether they're identified during or after their infectious period.

There's plenty of reason to base a pandemic on what we're seeing, this conversation is little more than a footnote for the deniers to cling to as it suits their agenda.

I already took the vaccine. If all it does is substantially reduce the transmission, that's a considerable benefit. I don't expect anything to ever work 100% of the time. That's not realistic. Saying it won't "stop" the transmission isn't a realistic criticism.

You're getting there, but you're still not getting it. I believe that if you do a little research, you'll find that no one--not the FDA, not the CDC, and not even the manufacturer--has claimed that the "vaccine" stops transmission. If you believe that they have, why don't you provide proof of it? If you can't, stop making claims that aren't true.

I don't know why you think I would believe that they have claimed it would stop transmission. You used the word stop, not me. I also don't know why you put vaccine in quotations.

I'm well aware that the vaccine won't stop transmission, but I have full expectation that it will considerably reduce it. We don't have the data on every vaccine but just a few days ago, data was published on the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine reduces transmission by about 67%. It's been in popular media but I haven't looked into it much at all so I can't say too much about it.

Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine appears to substantially reduce coronavirus transmission, study shows - CNN

 

[Faun]

No way!

BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE. CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential...

nationalfile.com

Why would the CDC want to inflate numbers?

LOL

You're right ... no way.

Your nationalfile.com article claims the CDC "stands accused" of falsifying fatality numbers, only when you actually read the article, they're the ones accusing the CDC and nationalfile.com is nothing but a rightwingnut conspiracy site. Even worse, if you actually read the article, their complaint is about PCR testing producing false negatives. That affects the number of cases.

I guess you didn't realize if the number of cases is really lower than what's being reported, that increases the fatality rate.

So tell me the ratio of false negatives to false positives given a cycle threshold of 40?

And why use a ct of 40 when it is common knowledge that anything over 35 is going to be meaningless?

It's relative. As the number of cases decreases and the number of deaths remains constant, the fatality rate increases.

Why use a ct of 40 when it is common knowledge that anything over 35 is going to be meaningless?

Oh, and since we've virtually eliminated the flu by wearing masks, are you going to advocate for masks next flu season? Or, are you going to ignore all of those preventable deaths from the flu, and go mask-free, threatening the lives of everyone around you?

I didn't condone using a ct of 40, so argue that with someone else who did. As far as wearing masks to help prevent the spread of the flu, no I would not advocate for that as I never have because there is a vaccine for the flu. Just as I won't be advocating for wearing masks because of covid once the vaccine becomes readily available to all who want it.

Yeah, but since you believe that masking up has virtually eliminated the flu, thereby saving maybe 60,000 lives a year, how could you not agree to wear a mask next year?

Does the "vaccine" prevent infection and transmission? And if not, why are you going to take it?

Because there's a vaccine for the flu. I believe I already said that.

And of course I will get the covid vaccine. Even though there's a slight chance I can get covid anyway, if I do, it will most likely be less severe and fought off more quickly than had I not gotten the vaccine.

But the new experimental "vaccine" has not been shown to prevent transmission. So how are you going to protect everyone from you while you're not wearing a mask?

It's too new to know yet. But it does help the body fight off the virus. So even if exposed to it after being vaccinated, the virus is likelier to be killed off faster, decreasing the chances of transmission.

Yes, you are correct. It is an experimental "vaccine." But are they going to pay you or anyone else for participating in their experiment?

And if this experimental "vaccine" changes your life in a bad way, are they going to do the moral thing and take care of you?

Of course not.

Correct! They will not pay anyone for being a test subject in their experimental vaccine trials. Neither will they compensate you if their experimental "vaccine" trials harm you in a bad way. That must be the worst deal in town!

No, not the worst. Worse would be doing nothing to protect one's self. The vaccinations so far have not been all that harmful. Mostly, there's been some side effects for a day or so. There have been some deaths, but at an infinitesimal level; and even many of those were not confirmed to have been caused by the vaccine.

But on the upside, if I were to contract covid, there's the chance it won't be as bad as had I not been vaccinated and there's the chance it will be less likely I won't spread it. It will take years of studies to determine the benefits of the vaccines.

You're right, it will take years and years to determine the benefits of the "vaccine." And it will also take years and years to determine the side effects. Why do you suppose that only 38% of medical workers are willing to take it? They're waiting for the long term trials to conclude. I estimate that the trials being conducted on the public right now to determine long term effects will take some time.

And the bad news is that it hasn't been shown to prevent transmission. So you might want to stock up on face-diapers and stay away from people.

"Face-diapers?"

Medical personal have been wearing masks for many, many years. Why would you insult them like that? Do you think you know better than them??

 

[Faun]

I didn't say you should die--least of all for being rational.

I was clearly replying to a different poster who did indeed say I deserve to die because my opinion on PCR cycle counts does not align with theirs.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that you should die; he said you deserve to die. I'm sure if you asked him, he would tell you that, while a person might deserve to die, it doesn't go to follow that they should die.

And about that PCR test having a cycle threshold of 40: Why would they do that when anything over 35 is going to be meaningless? I don't think anyone has answered that. Maybe you will.

Disagree. There is no difference in saying someone deserves to die and should die.

I still find fault with saying that this test is meaningless. It’s not.

Yeah, I know you do. However, why would you go against Tony's--and many others'--assessment of a cycle threshold of of 40? If the test has shown anything, it has shown that Tony and the FDA had no idea about the false positives that would result from a cycle threshold of 40. But of course we know that Tony actually did have an idea about that. He knew that the cycle threshold was set too high. Lots of people know that. He just thought he'd keep quiet about that.

Now, not to put you at odds with Tony, but why don't you explain to him--not me--why he is wrong and you are right.

Fauci never said that these tests are false positive or meaningless.

He never said that.

That’s the interpretation from internet COVID skeptics. It’s not factual.

I see . . .

“…If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

Interpret that for those of us who don't understand that Tony was really saying that it's live nucleoids, period.

I’ve said it many times. Those dead nucleoids aren’t there by chance or accident. They reflect a prior infection.

It’s not meaningless. It means that the infection was present earlier and the person is no longer infectious.

How many times have I said this now?

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

WTF?? Are you actually claiming people who were infected should no longer be counted as a "case?"

 

[Faun]

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

Now you know as well as I do that anyone listening to the daily propaganda about case numbers would infer that a case indicates a sick people. But that's a lie.

No, you're lying. "Active cases" tracks people currently infected. "Cases" reflects anyone who has had it or currently has it.

 

[Briss]

No way!

BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE. CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential...

nationalfile.com

Why would the CDC want to inflate numbers?

LOL

You're right ... no way.

Your nationalfile.com article claims the CDC "stands accused" of falsifying fatality numbers, only when you actually read the article, they're the ones accusing the CDC and nationalfile.com is nothing but a rightwingnut conspiracy site. Even worse, if you actually read the article, their complaint is about PCR testing producing false negatives. That affects the number of cases.

I guess you didn't realize if the number of cases is really lower than what's being reported, that increases the fatality rate.

So tell me the ratio of false negatives to false positives given a cycle threshold of 40?

And why use a ct of 40 when it is common knowledge that anything over 35 is going to be meaningless?

It's relative. As the number of cases decreases and the number of deaths remains constant, the fatality rate increases.

Why use a ct of 40 when it is common knowledge that anything over 35 is going to be meaningless?

Oh, and since we've virtually eliminated the flu by wearing masks, are you going to advocate for masks next flu season? Or, are you going to ignore all of those preventable deaths from the flu, and go mask-free, threatening the lives of everyone around you?

I didn't condone using a ct of 40, so argue that with someone else who did. As far as wearing masks to help prevent the spread of the flu, no I would not advocate for that as I never have because there is a vaccine for the flu. Just as I won't be advocating for wearing masks because of covid once the vaccine becomes readily available to all who want it.

Yeah, but since you believe that masking up has virtually eliminated the flu, thereby saving maybe 60,000 lives a year, how could you not agree to wear a mask next year?

Does the "vaccine" prevent infection and transmission? And if not, why are you going to take it?

Because there's a vaccine for the flu. I believe I already said that.

And of course I will get the covid vaccine. Even though there's a slight chance I can get covid anyway, if I do, it will most likely be less severe and fought off more quickly than had I not gotten the vaccine.

But the new experimental "vaccine" has not been shown to prevent transmission. So how are you going to protect everyone from you while you're not wearing a mask?

It's too new to know yet. But it does help the body fight off the virus. So even if exposed to it after being vaccinated, the virus is likelier to be killed off faster, decreasing the chances of transmission.

Yes, you are correct. It is an experimental "vaccine." But are they going to pay you or anyone else for participating in their experiment?

And if this experimental "vaccine" changes your life in a bad way, are they going to do the moral thing and take care of you?

Of course not.

Correct! They will not pay anyone for being a test subject in their experimental vaccine trials. Neither will they compensate you if their experimental "vaccine" trials harm you in a bad way. That must be the worst deal in town!

No, not the worst. Worse would be doing nothing to protect one's self. The vaccinations so far have not been all that harmful. Mostly, there's been some side effects for a day or so. There have been some deaths, but at an infinitesimal level; and even many of those were not confirmed to have been caused by the vaccine.

But on the upside, if I were to contract covid, there's the chance it won't be as bad as had I not been vaccinated and there's the chance it will be less likely I won't spread it. It will take years of studies to determine the benefits of the vaccines.

You're right, it will take years and years to determine the benefits of the "vaccine." And it will also take years and years to determine the side effects. Why do you suppose that only 38% of medical workers are willing to take it? They're waiting for the long term trials to conclude. I estimate that the trials being conducted on the public right now to determine long term effects will take some time.

And the bad news is that it hasn't been shown to prevent transmission. So you might want to stock up on face-diapers and stay away from people.

"Face-diapers?"

Medical personal have been wearing masks for many, many years. Why would you insult them like that? Do you think you know better than them??

There's been a study concerning masks being worn by medical personnel during surgery.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The results of the relatively simple trial reported here could easily be repeated and it would be interesting to see whether comparable results are obtained in emergency, orthopaedic, or other general surgical theatres. The finding that there was an appreciable fall in the wound infection rate when masks were not worn certainly warrants further investigation. This trial was designed only to see whether wound infection increased, as had been predicted, when masks were not worn. It did not. The conclusion is that the wearing of a mask has very little relevance to the wellbeing of patients undergoing routine general surgery and it is a standard practice that could be abandoned.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

annrcse01509-0009.pdf (nih.gov)

 

[Briss]

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

Now you know as well as I do that anyone listening to the daily propaganda about case numbers would infer that a case indicates a sick people. But that's a lie.

No, you're lying. "Active cases" tracks people currently infected. "Cases" reflects anyone who has had it or currently has it.

Does it tell you who is incapable of transmitting the virus?

 

[Briss]

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

Now you know as well as I do that anyone listening to the daily propaganda about case numbers would infer that a case indicates a sick people. But that's a lie.

So tell me, why wasn't clinical observation included in the diagnosis of a positive PCR test result.

And I don't recall any of the professional liars telling anyone that a positive test result doesn't mean you're infectious? So, basing a pandemic on such a thing is not professional; it's kind of criminal . . .

And why will you take the "vaccine"? It doesn't stop transmission.

It's propaganda to report the number of infections? I think the propaganda is trying to tell people that the testing is false, as this thread is attempting to do.

These are real cases whether they're identified during or after their infectious period.

There's plenty of reason to base a pandemic on what we're seeing, this conversation is little more than a footnote for the deniers to cling to as it suits their agenda.

I already took the vaccine. If all it does is substantially reduce the transmission, that's a considerable benefit. I don't expect anything to ever work 100% of the time. That's not realistic. Saying it won't "stop" the transmission isn't a realistic criticism.

You're getting there, but you're still not getting it. I believe that if you do a little research, you'll find that no one--not the FDA, not the CDC, and not even the manufacturer--has claimed that the "vaccine" stops transmission. If you believe that they have, why don't you provide proof of it? If you can't, stop making claims that aren't true.

I don't know why you think I would believe that they have claimed it would stop transmission. You used the word stop, not me. I also don't know why you put vaccine in quotations.

I'm well aware that the vaccine won't stop transmission, but I have full expectation that it will considerably reduce it. We don't have the data on every vaccine but just a few days ago, data was published on the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine reduces transmission by about 67%. It's been in popular media but I haven't looked into it much at all so I can't say too much about it.

Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine appears to substantially reduce coronavirus transmission, study shows - CNN

I looked at your link. They used a PCR test to determine infection. Now, what was that PCR test cycle theshold set at?

Oh hey, have you heard that the WHO has updated its PCR-testing guidelines after joe was inaugurated? Do you think those adjustments might have something to do with the reduction in "cases"?

 

[Faun]

No way!

BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE. CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential...

nationalfile.com

Why would the CDC want to inflate numbers?

LOL

You're right ... no way.

Your nationalfile.com article claims the CDC "stands accused" of falsifying fatality numbers, only when you actually read the article, they're the ones accusing the CDC and nationalfile.com is nothing but a rightwingnut conspiracy site. Even worse, if you actually read the article, their complaint is about PCR testing producing false negatives. That affects the number of cases.

I guess you didn't realize if the number of cases is really lower than what's being reported, that increases the fatality rate.

So tell me the ratio of false negatives to false positives given a cycle threshold of 40?

And why use a ct of 40 when it is common knowledge that anything over 35 is going to be meaningless?

It's relative. As the number of cases decreases and the number of deaths remains constant, the fatality rate increases.

Why use a ct of 40 when it is common knowledge that anything over 35 is going to be meaningless?

Oh, and since we've virtually eliminated the flu by wearing masks, are you going to advocate for masks next flu season? Or, are you going to ignore all of those preventable deaths from the flu, and go mask-free, threatening the lives of everyone around you?

I didn't condone using a ct of 40, so argue that with someone else who did. As far as wearing masks to help prevent the spread of the flu, no I would not advocate for that as I never have because there is a vaccine for the flu. Just as I won't be advocating for wearing masks because of covid once the vaccine becomes readily available to all who want it.

Yeah, but since you believe that masking up has virtually eliminated the flu, thereby saving maybe 60,000 lives a year, how could you not agree to wear a mask next year?

Does the "vaccine" prevent infection and transmission? And if not, why are you going to take it?

Because there's a vaccine for the flu. I believe I already said that.

And of course I will get the covid vaccine. Even though there's a slight chance I can get covid anyway, if I do, it will most likely be less severe and fought off more quickly than had I not gotten the vaccine.

But the new experimental "vaccine" has not been shown to prevent transmission. So how are you going to protect everyone from you while you're not wearing a mask?

It's too new to know yet. But it does help the body fight off the virus. So even if exposed to it after being vaccinated, the virus is likelier to be killed off faster, decreasing the chances of transmission.

Yes, you are correct. It is an experimental "vaccine." But are they going to pay you or anyone else for participating in their experiment?

And if this experimental "vaccine" changes your life in a bad way, are they going to do the moral thing and take care of you?

Of course not.

Correct! They will not pay anyone for being a test subject in their experimental vaccine trials. Neither will they compensate you if their experimental "vaccine" trials harm you in a bad way. That must be the worst deal in town!

No, not the worst. Worse would be doing nothing to protect one's self. The vaccinations so far have not been all that harmful. Mostly, there's been some side effects for a day or so. There have been some deaths, but at an infinitesimal level; and even many of those were not confirmed to have been caused by the vaccine.

But on the upside, if I were to contract covid, there's the chance it won't be as bad as had I not been vaccinated and there's the chance it will be less likely I won't spread it. It will take years of studies to determine the benefits of the vaccines.

You're right, it will take years and years to determine the benefits of the "vaccine." And it will also take years and years to determine the side effects. Why do you suppose that only 38% of medical workers are willing to take it? They're waiting for the long term trials to conclude. I estimate that the trials being conducted on the public right now to determine long term effects will take some time.

And the bad news is that it hasn't been shown to prevent transmission. So you might want to stock up on face-diapers and stay away from people.

"Face-diapers?"

Medical personal have been wearing masks for many, many years. Why would you insult them like that? Do you think you know better than them??

There's been a study concerning masks being worn by medical personnel during surgery.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The results of the relatively simple trial reported here could easily be repeated and it would be interesting to see whether comparable results are obtained in emergency, orthopaedic, or other general surgical theatres. The finding that there was an appreciable fall in the wound infection rate when masks were not worn certainly warrants further investigation. This trial was designed only to see whether wound infection increased, as had been predicted, when masks were not worn. It did not. The conclusion is that the wearing of a mask has very little relevance to the wellbeing of patients undergoing routine general surgery and it is a standard practice that could be abandoned.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

annrcse01509-0009.pdf (nih.gov)

So? They serve the same purpose.

 

[Faun]

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

Now you know as well as I do that anyone listening to the daily propaganda about case numbers would infer that a case indicates a sick people. But that's a lie.

No, you're lying. "Active cases" tracks people currently infected. "Cases" reflects anyone who has had it or currently has it.

Does it tell you who is incapable of transmitting the virus?

No, but that has nothing to do with the lie you told.

 

[colfax_m]

I looked at your link. They used a PCR test to determine infection. Now, what was that PCR test cycle theshold set at?

Oh hey, have you heard that the WHO has updated its PCR-testing guidelines after joe was inaugurated? Do you think those adjustments might have something to do with the reduction in "cases"?

I don’t know but I could probably find out by digging through the supplemental material.

If you’re implying that WHO changing standards reduced out rate, I doubt it. We aren’t exactly adherent to all WHO recommendations. If you’re implying the study changed their standards, that’d be a massive breach in standards and Id have a hard time believing they’d do so.

 

[Briss]

I looked at your link. They used a PCR test to determine infection. Now, what was that PCR test cycle theshold set at?

Oh hey, have you heard that the WHO has updated its PCR-testing guidelines after joe was inaugurated? Do you think those adjustments might have something to do with the reduction in "cases"?

I don’t know but I could probably find out by digging through the supplemental material.

If you’re implying that WHO changing standards reduced out rate, I doubt it. We aren’t exactly adherent to all WHO recommendations. If you’re implying the study changed their standards, that’d be a massive breach in standards and Id have a hard time believing they’d do so.

You have no idea what the cycle threshold of the PCR test was set at? Knowing that anything over 35 would be meaningless, why are you so lacking in curiosity about that setting?

The WHO decided that it would be a good idea to tell users of the PCR test to adjust them . . . after joe was intalled. Do you believe that?

What do you attribute your inability to produce information concerning the cycle threshold of the PCR test being used to detect a "case" to?

 

[colfax_m]

I looked at your link. They used a PCR test to determine infection. Now, what was that PCR test cycle theshold set at?

Oh hey, have you heard that the WHO has updated its PCR-testing guidelines after joe was inaugurated? Do you think those adjustments might have something to do with the reduction in "cases"?

I don’t know but I could probably find out by digging through the supplemental material.

If you’re implying that WHO changing standards reduced out rate, I doubt it. We aren’t exactly adherent to all WHO recommendations. If you’re implying the study changed their standards, that’d be a massive breach in standards and Id have a hard time believing they’d do so.

You have no idea what the cycle threshold of the PCR test was set at? Knowing that anything over 35 would be meaningless, why are you so lacking in curiosity about that setting?

The WHO decided that it would be a good idea to tell users of the PCR test to adjust them . . . after joe was intalled. Do you believe that?

What do you attribute your inability to produce information concerning the cycle threshold of the PCR test being used to detect a "case" to?

I’ve stated repeatedly that the test is not meaningless at 35 cycles and I’ve stated why.

Tell me why it matters in the context of this paper.

I could probably find the cycle threshold in the supplemental material but I don’t find it relevant. If this is so important to you, why can’t you produce it?

 

[Briss]

I looked at your link. They used a PCR test to determine infection. Now, what was that PCR test cycle theshold set at?

Oh hey, have you heard that the WHO has updated its PCR-testing guidelines after joe was inaugurated? Do you think those adjustments might have something to do with the reduction in "cases"?

I don’t know but I could probably find out by digging through the supplemental material.

If you’re implying that WHO changing standards reduced out rate, I doubt it. We aren’t exactly adherent to all WHO recommendations. If you’re implying the study changed their standards, that’d be a massive breach in standards and Id have a hard time believing they’d do so.

You have no idea what the cycle threshold of the PCR test was set at? Knowing that anything over 35 would be meaningless, why are you so lacking in curiosity about that setting?

The WHO decided that it would be a good idea to tell users of the PCR test to adjust them . . . after joe was intalled. Do you believe that?

What do you attribute your inability to produce information concerning the cycle threshold of the PCR test being used to detect a "case" to?

I’ve stated repeatedly that the test is not meaningless at 35 cycles and I’ve stated why.

Tell me why it matters in the context of this paper.

I could probably find the cycle threshold in the supplemental material but I don’t find it relevant. If this is so important to you, why can’t you produce it?

Yes, you've stated repeatedly that a PCR test with a cycle threshold of 35 is not meaningless. However, what you're being asked to acknowledge is the fact that anything over 35 is meaningless in terms of telling you anything about the infectiousness of a "positive" case. And that would make it relevant. So yeah, if you think you can find the cycle threshold of the PCR test used to indicate a "case," go ahead.

In the meantime:


Covid-19 Quotations: Questioning PCR Reliability

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.” — Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

“…all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” — Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer

“…false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients.” — The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.” — Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer

“…up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” — The New York Times

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist

“Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person” — The World Health Organization

“Caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” — The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste
“The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…” — Dominic Raab – First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.” — FDA

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

“…no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.” — Dr. Elena Surkova; Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy – Public Health Englamd; Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, you've stated repeatedly that a PCR test with a cycle threshold of 35 is not meaningless. However, what you're being asked to acknowledge is the fact that anything over 35 is meaningless in terms of telling you anything about the infectiousness of a "positive" case. And that would make it relevant. So yeah, if you think you can find the cycle threshold of the PCR test used to indicate a "case," go ahead.

I've already stated that a test with a PCR cycle that is very high is not an infectious case, but it's still a case because it represents someone that was infected. Now, in the context of the study being discussed, you've yet to explain why that would be relevant. You have decided not to do so because I don't think you are informed enough to be able to make the case. You're just picking a hill to die on for political reasons.