Coronavirus

Is that your way of saying that the PCR-test can tell you which virus you're testing positive for, and the condition of that virus, or the viral load?

I've already posted quotes from the relevant sources that make it clear that the PCR-test is useless when it comes to diagnosis.

And now you're going to explain how they all got it wrong. Should be ineresting.

PCR allows for rapid and highly specific diagnosis of infectious diseases, including those caused by bacteria or viruses.

Might well be that you and your sources got it better and get the Nobel prize, originally given in 1983 to Kary Mullis.

Initial data had shown that the approved vaccines are also effective against the delta variant when fully vaccinated.

A study [published in 'Nature', link below] now also found indications that complete vaccination protection is necessary to combat the Delta variant.
In the laboratory tests, the antibodies formed after a single dose of the vaccines from Biontech/Pfizer and AstraZeneca were hardly able to bind to the mutant first discovered in India and render it harmless, report the researchers around Olivier Schwartz from the Institut Pasteur in Paris. Both vaccines produced an efficient reaction against delta only after the second dose - in 95 percent of the people. After one dose, this was only the case in ten percent.

Reduced sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 variant Delta to antibody neutralization

So you're saying that the PCR-test identifies the virus, determines the state of the virus as well as the viral load.

Is that what you're trying to say?

No.

Ditto.

You know people like Glennn are taking part in getting some people lives cut short by selling such nonsense that otherwise would not have had their life cut short however that is being balance by the feeling that allowing fools to kill themselves seem like not a bad idea for the society as a whole.

Apparently you want me to know how you feel about me posting facts. Okay. You've made yourself clear. However, if you ever find yourself in the mood to debate those facts, don't hold back. It would serve your point much better than simple hysterics.

I am very very thankful every day that no one who I care for or even love for that matter are buying into the anti vaccine movement.

Internet nonsense that for example that we never land on the moon is harmless if silly but this anti vaccine nonsense is causing unneeded deaths by the hundreds of thousands.

How do you feel about the moon landings????????

Sorry but when tens of thousands of top medical experts tell me one thing and on the other hands we had self proclaim experts weighting in on the other side picking and choosing facts to support their arguments I am going with the experts and that go even more so when many hundreds of thousands of lives are hanging in the balance.

Bill, you did it again. You got all emotional and forget to post a challenge to the points I've made.

That's not very scientific, Bill. Try to make a point about the facts if you really think you're going to set people straight.

I accept your apology.

But Bill, you must have missed this.

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.

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

“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.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“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

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

“…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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7wze46md0&t=90s

“…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

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30614-5/fulltext

“…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)

https://maskoffmn.org/#kary

“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

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

“…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

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“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

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

“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

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19

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

https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste/5729700

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

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

“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

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“…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
____________________________________________________________________________________________

These are the people you refer to as self-proclaimed experts. My god, Bill, what does it take to impress you. Who has to tell you that the PCR-test is inappropriate as a diagnostic tool?

Oh yeah! That was really something. But the thrill is gone and I really don't feel anything much anymore.

LOL I have an engineering background that allow me to point out in some details the internet nonsense that we never land on the moon however I do not have the medical background that would allow me to attacks in details the same kind of internet nonsense dealing with vaccines.

I however do find that applying the tool of Occam's razor and logic to the anti vaccine movement claims and theories results in same conclusion of it being nonsense as the anti moon landings theories.

By the way what is your medical background that would cause anyone to have more faith in your opinions seemingly back by picking and choosing small elements of studies then the majority of the world experts in that field?

Bill, look at what's happening. I provided quotes from the FDA, the CDC, and a host of others with the medical backgrounds that you respect the hell out of. Are you trying to say that you don't believe and them anymore? And if not, why not?

Sorry it not the experts I question it is your ability to pick and choose elements of studies to come anywhere near the correct conclusions.

Once more what is your medical background?

Bill, it sounds like you are about to point me in the direction of something that will show that all of your respected and trusted people with medical backgrounds that I've just showed you surely didn't mean what they said, and that they actually believe that the PCR-test is a great diagnostic tool, and that a cycle threshold of 40 is a good thing.

So, what caused you to believe that all of those people didn't mean what they said?

Experts tend not to draw conclusions from any one study with special note of small scale studies. Reporting the results of a study does not mean that they are supporting the results of that study.

Bill, I posted quotes from all of your respected sources clearly stating that the PCR-test is inappropriate. You've read what they've said. What they said has nothing to do with a study. They were telling you that the PCR-test is unreliable. So, why are you calling it a study?

They're gonna try to make the thing mandatory.

https://www.rt.com/usa/528722-xavier-becerra-covid19-vaccination/

Well, it will thin the herd.