Coronavirus

you still listen to proven liars

The reason I don't know the answer to the question of why you can't explain how it is that you still listen to proven liars is because you are the only one who knows the answer to that.

You're not logical.

In other words, the context is obvious.

Your problem is that you can't come up with the proper context, and you're the only one here who doesn't understand that.

The CDC said they have the virus.

You're being asked why you continue believing liars.

Thing is, you posted something before thinking, and now you're stuck with it.

A recent memo from the World Health Organization designed for lab professionals became a major focus of misinformation — with unreliable websites and social media users claiming the agency had changed a testing protocol and admitted that COVID-19 cases have been wildly inflated.

But neither of those claims is accurate.

Instead, the Jan. 20 memo directed labs facilitating polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, tests to carefully follow manufacturer instructions for testing to prevent false positive and negative results.

The distortions online also tied the purported change to U.S. politics.

“An Hour After Joe Biden Is Sworn In, WHO Admits Their Testing Grossly Overstates Individuals Testing Positive for COVID,” read a headline from the Gateway Pundit, a website known for spreading misinformation. The story questioned the motives of public health agencies, asking, “how can these entities ever be trusted again?”

The story was shared more than 8,000 times on Facebook, according to CrowdTangle analytics data.

Another website, Zero Hedge, which also has previously spread falsehoods, similarly told readers: “Right On Cue For Biden, WHO Admits High-Cycle PCR Tests Produce COVID False Positives.” That story was shared on Facebook nearly 7,000 times.

Many posts also cited a viral tweet from David Samadi, a urologist and contributor to the conservative news channel Newsmax, whose work in a New York hospital was the subject of a federal investigation into fraudulent Medicare claims. That hospital reached a $12.3 million settlement in late 2019.

In his tweet, which has since been deleted, Samadi said the guidance instructed labs “to reduce the cycle count in PCR tests to get a more accurate representation of COVID cases,” because “the current cycle was much too high and resulting in any particle being declared a positive case.” One Facebook post sharing Samadi’s tweet claimed that the guidance proved “they’ve been lying to you about case counts and mortality rate THE WHOLE TIME.”

As we said, the WHO guidance implied no such admission. And the memo was an updated version of one issued a month earlier, on Dec. 14, so the idea that it was timed for Biden’s inauguration is wrong.

As we’ve explained before, PCR tests work by scanning the RNA in a sample, such as a nose swab, and searching for the virus RNA. (See our SciCheck article “The Facts on Coronavirus Testing.”)

The PCR test analyzes samples by amplifying a segment of the virus’s genetic material in a series of cycles. A sample with a higher viral load, meaning more virus is present in the sample, will require fewer cycles to detect the novel coronavirus. Lower viral loads will be detected at higher cycles.

There is no universal threshold setting or endpoint — “although 40-45 cycles is often used as the endpoint” of a PCR run — Ian MacKay, a virologist in Australia, told us in an email.

The WHO’s Jan. 20 guidance said it was requesting that those conducting tests be sure to read manufacturer instructions “carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended.”

In a statement to FactCheck.org, the WHO said it had received 10 reports since early 2020 about some PCR tests providing both false positive and false negative results and that “[a]fter thorough investigation, WHO confirmed that the tests were not always being used appropriately and in accordance with the instructions provided by the manufacturer.”

“In particular, users in laboratories encountered problems with these tests when they did not apply the recommended positivity threshold — this can result in either false negative results (if the threshold applied is lower) or false positives (if threshold is higher),” the WHO said.

MacKay said that problem “is not a test issue; it’s a human training and experience issue.”

“I suspect this is more a problem for certain countries or jurisdictions where rapid roll-out of new testing labs has occurred; labs that are new to public health testing,” MacKay said. “This would typically involve places that have failed to adequately invest in a good public health laboratory network, to begin with. I don’t think anything shows changing threshold values or less experienced laboratories have driven significant inflation of COVID-19 case counts though.”

Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious diseases at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, said in a phone interview that the WHO guidance was a simple reminder that if lab professionals deviate from the recommended manufacturer thresholds they’re “going to over- or under-call the positives or negatives.” She said the issue was not a significant concern in the U.S.

In a blog post batting down the misconceptions about the WHO’s guidance, MacKay wrote that “this lab-focused advice has been taken by those with malicious intent, or with too little understanding of the topic, and blown it up into something else entirely wrong.”

He further emphasized to us that “PCR results are not a diagnosis by themselves” — they’re part of the COVID-19 diagnosis. WHO advises they be considered in context of other factors, including symptoms and potential exposure to COVID-19.
Understanding Cycle Threshold Values

PCR tests are considered a gold standard for diagnostics among scientists, and while false negative and positive results are possible with any test, false positives from PCR tests are not thought to be a major or systemic issue — even positive results at high-cycle threshold values — experts say.

For example, MacKay has observed that, looking at COVID-19 data on tests in the United Kingdom, even reducing the “cycle number by 10 (from, for example, 45 to 35), for the sake of appeasement, the majority of positives would still be uncontroversially positive.”

Matthew Binnicker, a professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at the Mayo Clinic, said the true debate over results at high-cycle threshold values isn’t whether they are “false positives.”

“PCR tests are very specific, and these are not false-positives,” he told us in an email. “The test is doing what it was designed to do — detect the viral RNA in samples.”

Instead, he said, the tension among scientists concerns whether the values can be used “to determine whether someone is, or is not, ‘infectious'” to others. In other words, the question isn’t whether someone contracted the coronavirus, but rather, whether that person is likely to still be contagious and should be told to isolate and have their contacts traced.

“Some would argue that we should be ignoring low-positive PCR results (i.e., those with a high PCR cycle threshold value), as these results may mean that someone is no longer infectious,” Binnicker said.

But, he said, such a result could also mean that a person only very recently became infected and has yet to hit peak infectiousness.

And, he cautioned, the quality and type of sample can also affect how many cycles are needed to detect the virus, so it’s not always the case that a high-cycle result means a person is harboring remnants or only small amounts of the virus.

Michael Mina, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, likewise said getting positive test results at high-cycle threshold values “doesn’t mean they’re false positive, they’re still actually detecting the SARS-CoV-2 RNA.”

Mina said during a call with reporters that the WHO’s memo served as a reminder that “you have to be discerning about how to evaluate” cycle threshold values. “And if you’re going to start using the actual values from the PCR as part of your decision-making, [it’s important] to really know what it is you’re doing.”

For example, if someone is asymptomatic and happened to get a PCR test through testing as part of surveillance in a community, it may be a low viral load detected at a high-cycle threshold value — which could mean “you already were infectious and you maybe don’t need to be isolated,” he said.

“But it’s very hard to know that. You need to do repeated testing, you need to take that person and test them again,” he added. “Or, test them with an antigen test. That would be the other way to approach it.” (Antigen tests are a different type of test that can be used to quickly identify an active coronavirus infection.)

Binnicker also noted that, since patients who test positive for COVID-19 can sometimes continue to test positive long after recovering, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recommend PCR tests be used to determine when someone is no longer infectious. Instead, the agency advises relying on time and symptoms to break from quarantine or isolation.

FULL CLAIM: “WHO Admits High-Cycle PCR Tests Produce COVID False Positives”; “The WHO’s new guidance, which includes lower PCR thresholds, almost guarantees COVID ‘case’ numbers will automatically drop dramatically around the world.”; “PCR positive is no longer = Covid. You are not Covid now unless you get a second test to confirm it, and are presenting clinical symptoms.”; “WHO Changes CCP Virus Test Criteria in Attempt to Reduce False Positives”

REVIEW

Claims aimed at discrediting the COVID-19 PCR test and, by extension, public health responses to the pandemic, have repeatedly appeared throughout the pandemic. An information notice regarding COVID-19 PCR testing, published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 20 January 2021, became the new basis for such claims.

These claims were published in outlets such as Zero Hedge, Children’s Health Defense, LifeSiteNews, and the Epoch Times, which previously published health misinformation about COVID-19 (see examples here, here, here, and here). The claims also went viral on Twitter, and tweets captured in screenshots also went viral on Facebook (see here and here).

These articles and tweets interpreted the notice in various inaccurate and misleading ways. For example, some claimed that the notice shows the WHO “admits” the PCR tests produced many false-positive results, therefore the number of COVID-19 cases reported by public health authorities is inflated. Others claimed that it introduced a change in PCR methodology which would reduce the number of COVID-19 cases. Still others claimed that the WHO changed the criteria for a positive test result. These articles and posts received more than 39,000 interactions and more than 14,000 shares on Facebook, according to the social media analytics tool CrowdTangle.

These claims are inaccurate. Indeed, reading the information notice itself makes it clear that the WHO didn’t “admit” that the COVID-19 PCR test generates a large number of false-positive results, didn’t change the PCR methodology for “thresholds”, and didn’t change the criteria for positive test results across the board.

In short, the notice doesn’t mention any of the purported claims these articles and posts attributed to it, as Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong, pointed out in his response to an inaccurate tweet. The inaccurate tweet has since been deleted but is archived here:

Amazing that someone can tweet something like this, which is both absolute nonsense and NOT EVEN RELATED TO THE SCREENSHOT, and it still goes viral

The endless bullshit of COVID-19 denial

— Health Nerd (@GidMK) January 21, 2021

Emily Smith, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Baylor University, also tackled the same claims in this Facebook post:

“We still have 190,000+ cases per day that are diagnosed. Let’s say that 1% of those are false positives (which could happen if you move the Ct by a marginal amount), that would only reduce our DAILY cases by 1,900 – so, [not that] much.”

Although disease prevalence can increase the likelihood of false-positive COVID-19 test results, as the notice stated, Smith pointed out:

“Disease prevalence (this is cumulative cases; not just one-day totals) can increase the risk of false positives IF prevalence goes way down. We are a LONG way away from that happening. Prevalence will need to be very, very low for this to be the case.”

The COVID-19 PCR test detects the presence of the virus that causes the disease by amplifying a small part of the virus’ genetic material. The number of amplification cycles needed to arrive at a threshold considered to be “positive” is also called the cycle threshold (Ct) value. The Ct value is dependent on the amount of virus in a sample. The more virus present, the fewer amplification cycles are needed to reach the positive threshold, while a low viral load requires more amplification cycles to reach that threshold.

Ian Mackay, a virologist and associate professor at the University of Queensland, explained in this blog post that the information notice was simply a reminder to laboratory staff to “Read the instructions and understand the purpose of testing”. He lamented that “this lab-[focused] advice has been taken by those with malicious intent, or with too little understanding of the topic, and [blown up] into something else entirely wrong.”

Mackay highlighted a series of examples showing how the notice was spun in various ways to become the basis of misinformation on COVID-19 PCR testing, such as this (now-deleted) tweet by urologist David Samadi:

“The misunderstanding […] is around the WHO’s comment not to mess with the threshold for determining the threshold cycle (CT), if that contravenes the real-time RT-PCR test kit’s instructions for use (IFU) and you have no experience with doing so.

I have no idea how that was misinterpreted into becoming about changing the number of cycles used [in] the RT-rPCR though. This bold but wrong statement was quickly retweeted (now deleted thankfully) and spread far and wide (the account has 330,768 followers and a television audience).”

With regards to the claim that the notice recommends that the threshold for a positive result be lowered:

“[The] tweeter seems to have fallen into the same trap of misunderstanding, misreading or not reading at all the WHO Information Notice. They seem to think it says that the cycle number could be reduced. The notice doesn’t say this.”

And about the misleading claim that the WHO changed the criteria for a COVID-19 positive test result:

“Context is really lacking here The WHO Notice doesn’t state this as written and this will likely lead some who only read headlines to walk away with the wrong impression.

[…] The Notice discusses weak positive results (late or high CTs) – not all positives. It goes on to say that if the test doesn’t fit with the patient’s health (I’d add contact and epidemiological history) status, a new sample should be collected and the test repeated. A lab may use the initial test or a different test (good labs are armed with tests that target more than one genetic region of SARS-CoV-2 or come from more than one commercial supplier).”

A commonly repeated but inaccurate claim about the COVID-19 PCR test is that it generates many false-positive test results. Some conclude that this means the number of COVID-19 cases reported by public health agencies is inflated. However, as Meyerowitz-Katz explained in this article, “Most Positive Coronavirus Tests Are True Positives”:

“While there were some early validations that showed slightly higher numbers of false positives, we’ve now got enormous samples run by researchers from across the world that show the rate of false positives in PCR tests for COVID-19 to be around 1 in 1,000 or lower.

In other words, it is incredibly rare for a COVID-19 test that comes back positive to be a false positive. Almost unheard of. It happens, but very rarely, particularly because many tests are confirmed, i.e. run twice.”

This New York Times article, which dealt with the implications of high Ct positive test results, was misinterpreted by several outlets to mean that 90% of test results in the U.S. are false positives due to the PCR test’s sensitivity. As Health Feedback explained in this review, this interpretation fails to distinguish between the PCR test’s ability to confirm an infection—which is what case numbers measure—with the test’s ability to determine contagiousness.

This misinterpretation also uses the term “false positive” inaccurately to describe people with a high Ct positive result. A false-positive result indicates that a person tested positive but does not have the disease[1]. This is not the case for people with a high Ct value positive result. Regardless of whether the test had a high or low Ct value, a person is or has been infected if they test positive. This also means that it is correct to consider a person with a positive result and high Ct value as a COVID-19 case.

Overall, the claim that a WHO Information Notice “admits” that the PCR test produces many false-positive results, or that it changed the threshold or criteria for a positive test result, is false. Reading the notice makes it clear that it doesn’t state any of the above.

As explained in our review, positive COVID-19 test results generated by PCR testing are largely true positives. And regardless of whether the Ct value is high or low, a positive test indicates that the person is or has been infected with the virus, which qualifies them as a COVID-19 case. COVID-19 cases reported by public health authorities are therefore not an inflation due to “false positives”, but are genuine cases of infection.

“…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

This quote appears to be taken out of context.

The point of contention here is whether or not I took tony's statement out of context.

You could have proved your point by putting his words in the proper context, but so far you've failed to do even that.

Also, you need to address the other points I've made, like the one about the CDC lying about being in possession of the virus.

I am still very curious as to how you resolve that conflict in your mind without compromising the integrity of your brain.

Bullshit. I don't need to address anything you say. Be grateful that anyone responds to your agitprop at all.

I am not reading any of Glenn's delusional nonsense.

I have better things to do than read your drivel.