Coronavirus

Rather than complain about things you don't like talking about, why don't you paraphrase the statement below so that we can finally find out what's really going on in that head of yours?

____________________________________________________________________

13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
____________________________________________________________________

If you're going to continue pretending that you have no idea what that means, don't take it out on the one who asked you; that's bad form. Or, if you'd rather not deal with the implications of that statement from the CDC, again, don't take it out on the one who showed it to you.

Let's move on.

The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. (emphasis added, page 40)

Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:

On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.

You do yourself no favors by pretending to not recognize the discrepancy there. Why don't you address that discrepancy instead of pretending you don't see it?

Oh I haven't forgotten how the difference between a cycle-threshold of 35 and a cycle-threshold of 40 became too hard to understand for some.

Seriously now and so that I can read your answers are also seriously:

what are your academic and practical qualifications in virology and laboratory medicine?

Seriously?

Maybe you saw me through my webcam and that's why you wrote this emoj.
However, you then totally misinterpreted my facial expression. Which is excusable, since we don't know each other personally, not "analogue".

Therefore once again: "seriously".

No. What you've unwittingly told me is that you think you need a PhD to understand the difference between 35 and 40 when it comes to PCR-test cycle-thresholds . . . which is strange considering I've already shown you that Fauci has clearly stated that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 is inappropriate. Nevertheless, that's when you lost the ability understand the difference between 35 and 40.

What happened is that you actually do understand what you've been shown, but you aren't willing to condemn one of your authority figures even though they can't both be right.

So, who had it right, fauci or the FDA?

Both of them. Neither of them agree with you on anything.

I didn't tell you that, neither unwittingly or in another way.

Please stop spreading false and untrue statements of fact about me immediately.

It's just that, when you refuse to understand the difference between a cycle-threshold of 35 and one of 40, I figure it must be because you believe you are no longer qualified to understand the difference, even though I've posted the unedited video of fauci explaining that a PCR-test cycle-threshold of anything over 35 is inappropriate. In fact, here it is . . . again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=260s

And here's the FDA recommending a cycle-threshold of 40 . . . again!

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

Explain why the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold that fauci has clearly stated is inappropriate.

See above post!

Oh, and what does this mean to you?
____________________________________________________________________

13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
____________________________________________________________________

It's from the test package insert. Does "cannot rule out" actually mean "can rule out"?

Exactly what it says: 13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

This is used on MOST test 'kits' for a wild assortment of complaints. You know, false positives, like pregnancy kits, or the kits that test for prostrate cancer for men.

If that's the best you can do, what are you so worried about?

You'll know you've come up short when you find yourself comparing a pregnancy test to a covid test. But go ahead and link me to a pregnancy test package-insert that tells you that it ". . . cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens."

But what I'd really like to hear from you is how they calibrated the test for the "novel" coronavirus when they used a SARS coronavirus from 2003?

Also, why did the CDC state that they were in possession of the virus, only to later admit that they didn't really have it after being forced to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request?

The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:

On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.

Why were they being dishonest?

You argue by the pound. And it just doesn't work. All that poundage and not an ounce of logic or salients points.

Hmm.

Showing you facts from credible sources like the FDA, the CDC, fauci, etc. is not me arguing; it's me showing you valid information which you're being asked to comment on.

You know the sources are legitimate, and you know how to read. And you and I both know that that's why you have no intention of addressing any of it.

But on the off chance that you're going to address anything, why don't you start with this:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Why did the CDC claim that they were in possession of the virus, only to later admit that they didn't really have it, but only after being forced to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request?

The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:
____________________________________________________________________________________________

On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Why were they being dishonest?

As early as February 2020, the "SARS-CoV-2 was isolated for the first time using epithelial cells of the human respiratory tract and classified into the subgenus Sarbecovirus of the Beta-CoVs by phylogenetic analyses of the gene sequences by Korean scientists.
Shortly afterwards, research institutions in the USA and Canada followed suit.
Here in Germany researchers at the Institute of Virology at the University Hospital Düsseldorf successfully isolated the SARS coronavirus type 2 from patient swabs as early as 25 March 2020.

They aren't being dishonest, you're being disingenuous. You're trying to make points not bucked up by your evidence.

Gee, that's odd. A Freedom of Information Act forced about a hundred medical facilities and organizations in the U.S. and Canada to admit that they are not in possession of information or data concerning the isolation of the covid virus.

If you care to continue this discussion, I'll post each Freedom of Information Act request to the various health organizations alleged to be in possession of data or information related to isolation of the virus. Then I'll post their responses. And all you have to do is address them. You up for it?

Oh, and do you believe that fauci was right when he said that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 is too high? And if so, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? Who was way off?

My dearest.
I really don't care what the US Freedom of Information Act says when I can look at the scientific papers (and results) printed with my own eyes.
And I did so this morning at the Medical Branch Library of the University and State Library. There are lots of scientific papers. But I do believe that you'll find them in the USA as well - especially those, published and printed there.

First we'll establish that you refuse to acknowledge the discrepancy between fauci and the FDA regarding proper cycle-threshold (fauci said nothing over 35; the FDA said 40). They were diametrically opposed to each other. You still need to explain how both can be right, even though you know they both can't be right. So . . .

Also, why don't you pick an institution, organization, or medical facility that you believe is in possession of the virus, and I'll see if I can locate the FOIA request to them for that data. If I can locate it, I'll also provide their response to the request.

So, who do you believe is in possession of the virus?

Did I miss something? Is this a disputation now? Who else is in the colloquium besides you?
Or did you use the pluralis majestatis?

I don't remember submitting a thesis for any academic degree recently.

[quote="Glenn"So, who do you believe is in possession of the virus?[/quote]
Since April 2020, the (German) Federal Ministry of Education and Research has continuously compiled lists showing the national and international offers for funding, networking, innovation competitions, use of research infrastructures and research data/publications.
There are certainly similar offers in English as well.

Try searching for yourself.