PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

I brought up the issue of the PCR-test in the Coronavirus thread. You told me where to take my argument, even providing a link for me to follow to this thread. That's where I am now. But I'm not alone. You're here, and admittedly for the purpose of letting me know that you're not interested in talking about it. Ponder that.

Is it that you don't believe that the medical authorities knew that the PCR-test cycle threshold was set too high? Can't be that because I provided quotes from all of them saying exactly that. Now, given your propensity to not address a single thing, I'd like for you to just answer yes or no to the question of whether or not you accept the fact that these mainstream medical authorities have condemned the use of a cycle threshold of 40. Or, would you rather not comment on what you've seen that they've said?

For your edification:

“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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is what you've apparently forgotten.

After taking the above into account, one might also want to consider the fact that the experimental injections do not confer immunity no matter how much you want to believe that they do. Tony himself has said as much.

So, based on the facts, the experimental injection is a treatment for something you do not have, and which would not give you immunity to it anyway. If anyone can explain the wisdom of accepting a treatment for something you do not have, and which will not give you immunity, I'd like to hear the rationale behind that kind of thinking.

In the interest of not derailing another thread where an argument had recently been made concerning news that almost all new cases of coronavirus are among people who have opted out of getting the experimental injection, I'll just say that I think we need to factor in the CDC's recent guideline-change to the cycle threshold setting of the PCR-test because the fact is that the cycle threshold for the vaccinated has been turned down to 28, while maintaining a cycle threshold of 40 for the unvaccinated.

I wonder if that omission from the equation constitutes misinformation.

Anyone know the survival rate of the infected?

The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness

Salk researchers and collaborators show how the protein damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease

LA JOLLA—Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself.

The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.

Representative images of vascular endothelial control cells (left) and cells treated with the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (right) show that the spike protein causes increased mitochondrial fragmentation in vascular cells.

Click here for a high-resolution image.

Credit: Salk Institute

“A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings.”

Salk researchers collaborated with scientists at the University of California San Diego on the paper, including co-first author Jiao Zhang and co-senior author John Shyy, among others.

While the findings themselves aren’t entirely a surprise, the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There’s been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system, but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented.

In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls.

The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2’s molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.

“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID,” Manor explains. “Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS CoV-2 viruses.”

The researchers next hope to take a closer look at the mechanism by which the disrupted ACE2 protein damages mitochondria and causes them to change shape.

Other authors on the study are Yuyang Lei and Zu-Yi Yuan of Jiaotong University in Xi’an, China; Cara R. Schiavon, Leonardo Andrade, and Gerald S. Shadel of Salk; Ming He, Hui Shen, Yichi Zhang, Yoshitake Cho, Mark Hepokoski, Jason X.-J. Yuan, Atul Malhotra, Jin Zhang of the University of California San Diego; Lili Chen, Qian Yin, Ting Lei, Hongliang Wang and Shengpeng Wang of Xi’an Jiatong University Health Science Center in Xi’an, China.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Shaanxi Natural Science Fund, the National Key Research and Development Program, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University; and Xi’an Jiaotong University.

https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, what is that the mRNA experimental injections deliver to your cells?

It's the spike protein! Whaaaaaat??

Which helps your body develop antibodies to reject the real virus which multiplies and creates many spike proteins.

Once again, let's do this slow so that you can't talk past the point being made.

So, is the spike protein harmful to the recipient? Just a yes or no will do? Shouldn't take too long. Then we'll move on to your next misunderstanding.

Or is this just another drive-by offering intended to raise doubts about what was discovered about the spike protein that you've just read, but don't care to acknowledge!

Small doses cause the body to develop an immune response to protect against large doses caused by disease. Lots of data at this point - it is tremendously effective preventing infections to a large extent and reducing severity where infections do occur. I'm not sure why you continue to ignore all the reams of data showing how effective the vaccines used in the US are. Not sure why you think your few hours on questionable websites trumps experts across the spectrum. Not sure why you are so blazingly angry. If you don't want the vaccine, don't get it. I think that is stupid given that the most recent version of the virus seems to be more virulent than the version that killed 600,000 Americans but people have the freedom to be stupid. Still, in state after state the reports are the same - almost no deaths among the vaccinated, much lower hospitalization rates. You say the vaccine is harmful, where are the sick and dying from the vaccine? 150 million Americans have been vaccinated, why aren't they falling in the streets? Does it matter to you that the logical conclusions of your suppositions haven't come to pass? If the logical statement IF A THEN B is true then IF NOT B THEN NOT A is also true. If you can't show me sick and dying people affected by the vaccine then your argument that the vaccine is harmful is invalid. The death rate from Covid 19 has pretty consistently been just below 2%. Complications from the vaccine are 4 orders of magnitude less. That's the data. All the hand waving arguments you want can't dispel that. The vaccine is effective in preventing disease and mitigating illness just like vaccines before it for polio, measles and smallpox.

Why don't you produce one of those studies?

In the meantime, why don't you explain how the Salk study from a couple of months ago doesn't point to a problem?

This will help you come to terms with what you apparently would rather over talk past.

". . . but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own."

In the interest of you making yourself clear, are you trying to say that they got it wrong?

Wow, such research prowess! Ever heard of VAERS?

Also, why do think the CDC gave new guidelines when it came to testing people with the PCR-test? Why would they want it turned down for the vaccinated, and turned up for the unvaccinated?

Really? Prevents disease? Just like other vaccines before it? Is that how the new mRNA experimental injection works? Just like the old ones. Have you heard that the Beatles split up?

Oh hey! What's the survival rate of covid? I ask that because if it were something like 99%, then it sounds like you're all for trying an experimental injection to get that extra one percent protection. That seems hysterical to me. But your body, your choice, eh?

Here's an aricle from factcheck.org about the spike protein generated by the vaccines used in the US.

from the article

Why are you people still arguing with Glennn?

At this point there is so much data on the vaccines this thread is just silly.

Okay, now factcheck this:

While the findings themselves aren’t entirely a surprise, the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There’s been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system, but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented.

In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls.

The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2’s molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now just for fun, why don't you paraphrase that for everyone. Do you really think that the people at the Salk Institute need to be factchecked? Are they one of those . . . conspiracy theorist sites?

Why would I paraphrase for fun? Is there something you're not understanding?

Oh, the Salk Institute is factual all right. So is factcheck.org.

Yep, it is a risk/reward calculation. It is not an "extra one percent protection", it is 95% protection. Why on earth would you take a 1-2% risk with your life (and a 20% risk of hospitalization and an additional risk of long term complications and a risk of transmitting to your family and friends and the impact of a serious illness on work)? One percent of 150 million vaccinated Americans is 1.5 million deaths prevented in the US alone.

You addressed nothing. Focus on the below and tell me where you think they got it wrong. Remember, you're not being asked to play cheerleader for an experimental injection. You're being asked to address what I provided you with.

Try again:

While the findings themselves aren’t entirely a surprise, the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There’s been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system, but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented.

In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls.

The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2’s molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, I'll remind you again that you're being asked to explain how the Salk Institute came to a different conclusion than you. Go ahead.

Oh, and why did the CDC decide to turn the PCR-test down to a threshold of 28 for the people who've received the experimental injection, but leave it at 40 for the people who don't want an experimental injection.

Is this an accredited university?

Glenn, I answered your question pages ago. Why are you still harping on it.

The scientific reason for lowering the threshold when the population decreases is Bayes law. You can google it. This is the mathematical reason for doing it, and as they are being transparent (saying what threhold they are using) it is perfectly valid.

I answered your question. Are you capable of moving on?

(Bayes law is an interesting topic, and it has relevence inany areas from drug testing to computer science. I will give more detail if anyone is interested).

Now explain how Bayes law dictates that only the people who've refused to take the experimental injection will be tested at a 40 cycle threshold.

Oh hell no! The Salk Institute can be found in a back alley with an old dried out slab of wood with SALK INSTITUTE written sloppily on the good side. But that doesn't stop them from trying.

Sure. Right after you explain how the Salk Institute got it wrong when they explained that the experimental injection of the protein-spike causes damage to the recipient.

This is what they said:

". . . but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own."

You have a problem with that?