PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

Here, we'll do this slow so that you can't talk past my point.

Who said this:

“…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…”

Who said this:

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

Who said this:

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

Who said this:

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

Who said this:

". . . 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…
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This is what I mean about people hoping they can just wait until the questions go away so that they can talk about something else.

But yeah, what about it? Who said those things that conflict with your world view?

If you still believe that this experimental treatment offers immunity, then yes, I did win . . .

How the hell is this ridiculous thread still going? There is no reason for anyone sane to keep responding to this silly nonsense.

Glad I could clarify it for you. You're welcome.

Ibid.

In fact, there's pro experimental-treatmenters not far from here who are trying to blame people who don't like being part of the experiment for the herd not reaching immunity. Apparently they've all agreed to ignore the fact that the manufacturer has already stated that their experimental treatment has not been shown to prevent infection or transmission. The CDC and the Who have said as much, too. But that's not what pro experimental-treatmenters remember about what's been said.

Plus, there is a reason that this experimental treatment for the coronavirus has not been given FDA approval after all this time. It has something to do with ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) and what was observed in animal trials; they died pretty horribly after contracting the virus in the wild. I don't believe that problem was ever resolved before this experimental treatment was given emergency-use-authorization. Has anyone heard of that problem being resolved? I'll see if I can find something.

I couldn't find anything. So I guess the problem with animals dying horrible deaths after this experimental treatment was given to them prior to contracting the real world virus had not been resolved before allowing it to be used on humans.

This whole thread reminds me of an ancient parody of "Point and Counterpoint", circa 1977 SNL and the line that keeps resonating in my head is "Jane, you ignorant slut". The only difference is that the SNL skit was written as absurdist humor, and this thread just offers a few bitter old guys an opportunity to express open hostility and heap scorn on other posters for reasons of their own.

Hope your boil gets lanced, you'll feel better.

Nah, they're not bitter. They're just mad because they can't explain the moronic decision to give this experimental treatment to deathbed recipients even though the manufacturer, the CDC, and the WHO have stated that this experimental treatment doesn't stop infection or transmission. They don't know how to explain that, and so they avoid the issue by calling it silly. So if you'd be a dear and help them conquer their fear of admitting the obvious, that would be great. Maybe if you're firm with them, they'll accept what the manufacturer, the CDC, and the WHO have already confirmed, and just maybe they'll stop preaching on about herd immunity in reference to an experimental treatment that doesn't prevent infection or transmission.

And I think they're frustrated because they have no idea why tony would say that a PCR-test cycle threshold of anything over 35 will spit out meaningless results, and yet remain quiet as a mouse as labs did just that. When they remain as quiet as tony when it comes to answering for that, they give the impression that they're not here to refute ANYTHING . . . kind of like you just did. I mean, people come in here basically to expose what they don't know. You, for instance, were unaware of the existence of VAERS, but that doesn't stop you from continuing here; it should, but it doesn't.

Would you like to be the daredevil and break the mold here by answering just one question. I didn't think so.

Well, as tempting as it might be to attempt to provide you with an answer you would not mock relentlessly, I'm going pass for the time being. Mainly because right now it's too entertaining following along and waiting for another example of this "Jane, you ignorant slut" style (for want of a better term)of engagement. I shouldn't really say entertaining, because its really more like a watching a peculiar sort of incomprehensible ritual. Yet somehow there is some futile notion that if I can just manage to read enough of this snide semi-scathing attempt at discussion maybe it will become clear what the actual reason is for all this hostility.


But when you get right down to it, what difference will it make. There is nothing of value to be gained, no prizes given for 'understanding the issue' and most importantly it will not enrich my life or anybody else's. So it can only be of interest/curiosity for a short period of time, and I remind myself that if I really needed to engage in naked hostility or was desperate to solve the anger issues of others, I would have stayed married to my first husband.


You boys have fun now y'hear.

Well you've convinced me that you find nothing of value in the facts I've presented. Not my problem.

However, you should learn to give at least the appearance of not caring to discuss these things. For instance, you might consider how your "participation" in this thread for no other reason than to whine about it makes people think that you value whining. And who could argue with them?

Gosh I thought you were the one whining. (Psst, I'm right)

Jane... it’s one thing to demand your own right to be ignorant, but it's quite another to tell us what’s good for you is good for everyone.

Perhaps she's off pondering the wisdom of injecting an experimental treatment that the manufacturer, the CDC, and the WHO have already stated does not prevent infection or transmission. Hard to reconcile that with the belief that herd immunity is the result. It's not logical, but that's where we are.

And now, in response to the breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated, the CDC has determined that in order to qualify as a breakthrough case, one must now be hospitalized or dead. They've also determined that breakthrough cases should be tested using a PCR-test cycle threshold of 28 instead of 40+.

Before, if you tested positive at a cycle threshold of 40 without having even a sniffle, you were nevertheless deemed infected, and you counted as a case. But now, in order to bolster the reputation of the "vaccines," the cycle threshold will be turned back to 28 . . . for the vaccinated only!

Should be pretty clear by now . . .

I've given up trying to make sense of the world's response to cv19.
It apparently lost its mind last year.

I will defend humanity (again). It is pretty simple.

1) We detected a new deadly strain of coronavirus.
2) Scientists raised the alarm.
3) Most countries instituted masking, shutdowns and social distancing to lower the impact of the virus on populations and health systems.
4) Corporations and scientists made and tested vaccines.
5) As people took vaccines scientists watched carefully to see how they were perfoeming. They performed well .
6) Governments.started lifting shutdowns as the vaccine rates increased.

Humans did pretty well with this one, with the small population of crazies and normal human foibles... I yhink we did pretty well.

Indeed it has.

Even when the shell game is exposed concerning the CDC's decision to use a PCR-test cycle threshold of 28 for the vaccinated, and 40 for the unvaccinated, many lack the presence of mind to understand that that decision was made for the purpose of creating a distinction between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated when it comes to who's infected and who is not. I mean, that's right-in-your-face deception from the CDC.