4
   

PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

 
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 06:58 pm
@maxdancona,
In each of the EUAs, the FDA has been careful to avoid any claim that the vaccines provide protection against infection or transmission of the virus. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have each publicly stated that the vaccines have NOT been shown to prevent infection or transmission.

All of their regulatory documents and commentary addressing the issue state clearly that there is no evidence that the vaccines affect either infection with or transmission of the virus, nor do they prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from appearing.

The US Government Position

The FDA’s Briefing Document analyzing clinical trial data for the Pfizer vaccine, released the day before the FDA’s issuance of an EUA for that vaccine, noted (on page 47):

Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against asymptomatic infection

And:

Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [virus] from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.”

The FDA Briefing Document on the Moderna vaccine stated the same fact, while also describing plans for a future clinical trial to measure infection prevention, but that will not be completed until December 31, 2023 (p.47). The FDA’s review of the Janssen vaccine noted the same “limited” data…

to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing asymptomatic infection… and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn at this time.”

“Limited data” means there is in fact no evidence to support those conclusions.

The CDC Advisory Committee that recommended emergency use of the Moderna vaccine noted:

“the level of certainty for the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was… type 4 (very low certainty) for the estimates of prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause death.”

The CDC guidance to Covid vaccine administrators (January 2, 2021) asks:

Can a person who has received a Covid-19 vaccine still spread COVID-19? At this time, we do not know if COVID-19 vaccination will have any effect on preventing transmission.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) on January 26, 2021 similarly admitted:

We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”
_____________________________________________________________________________

What do you think, max? The study on efficacy won't be done until 2023,
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 07:01 pm
@Glennn,
So you started with the conspiracy theory and now you're pouring through and user agreements that support your claim about science???

8 you are playing a silly game
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 07:37 pm
@maxdancona,
Max, you're not addressing anything at all.

The PCR test that was used to detect coronavirus was set at a 40-cycle threshold of amplification/replication as per the FDA's recommendation. However, even infectious disease "expert" Tony himself is on record stating that an amplification/replication cycle above 35 is going to spit out almost all false-positives; others say anything above 30 cycles is meaningless. There was even a New York Times article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives. It takes almost zero critical thinking skills to draw the obvious conclusion. Ninety percent false positives means no pandemic.

So, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? That's a rhetorical question; they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic. Also, why didn't Tony bother to speak up concerning what can only be described as a deliberate and gross misapplication of a test? We'll never know because, thanks to a complicit media, Mr. Fauci is not required to publicly answer even one challenge to his dire predictions which are based on 90% false positive returns from a PCR test that was knowingly set too high.

Unfortunately, unless some talking head comes on tv and tells people it's okay to apply their own critical thinking skills to those factual numbers, they won't do it. They think they need permission to make the obvious inference and then respond to the falsehood they've been fed. And the real kicker is that the only ones they'll accept permission from are the same ones who neglected to inform them of the reason for all the false positives in the first place.

So, given what we now know about the PCR-test, and how it was set too high despite all of the "experts" involved, how should we respond to a 90% false positive rate?
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Now max, I've been more than patient with you concerning your refusal to address one thing in this thread. Now, tell me why you're not responding to the post above. You need to tell me where I got it wrong. Did I misquote tony concerning his expert opinion that a cycle threshold setting of anything over 35 is ridiculous? Were the PCR-tests set at 40, max? Did the PCR-test cycle threshold produce, oh, I don't know, something like 90% false positives? You have to address something or it begins to look like you're just disrupting the thread.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 07:47 pm
@Glennn,
You are not addressing anything either. You are starting with this silly conspiracy theory and then you are cherry picking random news stories to support it. It's the same it's the same ridiculous game.

Are you really a alleging that there are millions of Crisis actors dying in hospital is part of a diabolical government conspiracy to invent a pandemic that isn't really happening?

You're being ridiculous
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 07:56 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Are you really a alleging that there are millions of Crisis actors dying in hospital is part of a diabolical government conspiracy to invent a pandemic that isn't really happening?

Max, that is a blatant attempt to move the goalpost.

Now do you agree that the PCR-test cycle threshold was set too high?

And are you of the opinion that all of the experts were ignorant of what the other experts had set the cycle threshold at?
Quote:
cherry picking random news stories

Are you saying that the people and organizations--and what they've said--are made up?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 07:56 pm
Let's see if I can play this game.

"Experts" say the Earth orbits the "Sun" (I hope you appreciate my random use of quotation marks.

"Experts" calculate the sunrise for a location every day.

Do you see the contradiction ? These "Experts " are covering up something, you cant explain to me why the Earth orbits the Sun the Sun. You only believe that because that's what the "experts" told you

The sun is about 93 million miles from Earth light travels at about 186000 meters per second. Don't you see how the government is covering up an orbit conspiracy?
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 08:01 pm
@maxdancona,
Max, you reek of desperation. And you've decided to advertise it in plain terms.

Thanks for being a backboard, though. There's lots of shots to come, max.

But for now, do you agree that the PCR-test cycle threshold was set too high?

And are you of the opinion that all of the experts were ignorant of what the other experts had set the cycle threshold at . . . and during a frickin' pandemic no less!?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 08:18 pm
@Glennn,
I'm the only one who is paying any attention to you. Sure I'm mocking you. But I still think you should be grateful.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 08:22 pm
So, from the horse's mouth himself, max is trolling.

Well done max . . .
Quote:
I'm the only one who is paying any attention to you.

Gee max, what does that say about the other thread about covid that's been up a little longer than mine, yet has fewer views? You didn't even bother to research that, either, did you?
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 10:07 pm
@Glennn,
First of all, I'm not qualified to debate the scientific data and I sure don't want to argue about the pandemic or vaccines. Just looking at it as a mother and living person, my understanding is that although the vaccine can't assure you will never be infected, it's the best chance you have for not dying or being disabled by COVID. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the experts have been saying that even if you are vaccinated you could still be a transmitter to others who are not vaccinated. In the past we used to call these 'transmitters' carriers.

Another view (as a non-scientist) is that herd immunity doesn't mean that the virus will go away and no one will ever get sick again, to me it just means certain contagious diseases won't spread like wild-fire because people are unprotected.

It's also possible that I may interpret the language differently than some do, I don't see the Health Experts advice as Gospel (hell I don't think the Gospel is Gospel), I think most of the experts are providing the best (up-to-minute) advice they can give..because if they don't figure this out they will be failures. I've lived too long to think there won't be poseurs and fabulists involved in the process, and there will be opportunists who only goal is to cash in.

Please believe I am not saying I think anyone is wrong here, but I do think we all bring different interpretations to the table. The best outcome is that every view is at least considered then hopefully the problem can be solved.

I already concede I didn't verify or challenge or refute anything, just wanted to make an observation that I hope will be received in the spirit I intended.


Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 10:26 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
First of all, I'm not qualified to debate the scientific data

I'm discussing the issue of the PCR-test being set too high, and what that means. That's called scientific data. How qualified do you think you have to be to understand what "set too high" means? So the question remains, why didn't tony, or any of the "experts" speak up and say something about the PCR-tests being set ridiculously high? Also, why would tony and the other "experts" remain so close mouthed about that? I mean . . .

So that's what's being debated here, not our feeling about the topic.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2021 12:21 am
@Glennn,
I figured this would be a mistake. I'm not talking about 'feelings', I don't see language as 'feelings' but as a form of communication or education or information or all three. So, I'll quit now rather than get dragged into a pointless esoteric rabbit hole. It's your thread, you make the rules....sorry to intrude. Hope you feel better soon.
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2021 04:07 am
Amazing how readily some people will admit they can’t make logical deductions for themselves.
One wonders on what basis they vote, or anything else for that matter.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2021 06:21 am
@glitterbag,
Quote:
So, I'll quit now rather than get dragged into a pointless esoteric rabbit hole.

The problem as I see it is that, for some unknown reason, duped people tend to maintain their ignorance (ignoring) by insisting that the cycle threshold of the PCR-test used to detect covid is just too darn hard to understand. It's not! It was deliberately set way too high.

Do you really believe that understanding what 90% false positives means falls under the category of esoteric knowledge? I'm sorry you consider such knowledge to be esoteric. It's not. The test was set too high, and either none of the experts involved knew what was going on (morons), or they did and thought that they would keep it to themselves. What do you think?

As far as me feeling better, I always feel better when I don't betray myself and insult the integrity of my brain by pretending that something so simple to understand will require father tony to set me straight.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2021 06:27 am
@Leadfoot,
Welcome to the church of Covid. They're staunch defenders of the esoteric. And now they're probably getting ready to pray this away with their thumbs.
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2021 09:48 am
@Glennn,
Medical testing has to balance sensitivity and specificity and it really depends on the risk of false positives and false negatives. The risk of a false positive for Covid is the person will quarantine and get another test. The risk of a false negative is substantial community spread by someone who incorrectly believes they are fine. It makes sense that the limit would be set to be more sensitive, less specific. I'm not sure why this is generating so much energy for you. Are you concerned that the low specificity is slowing economic reopening?
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2021 10:17 am
@engineer,
I don't think Glennn accepts the fact that viruses can cause disease. This is not a rational argument.

Glennn is arguing that covid-19 does not exist as a disease that is part of some nefarious plot( perhaps by lizard people). All this talk of scientific terms like sensitivity and specificity are way too rational in response to this ridiculous nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2021 10:30 am
@Glennn,
And you sir, are now a prophet

I still can’t believe the world shut down the most vulnerable yet valuable part of its economy for a ******* year now, for no net benefit in the long run. They complain about the disparity of wealth and play right into the hands of the Uber wealthy to make it worse. I don’t know whether to blame it on conspiracy, stupidity or plain old fear of death. We have become such a cowardly species.

I did hear a terrific rant by Elon Musk this morning on the stupidity of how we handled the pandemic and how we should have done it.
RABEL222
 
  4  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2021 10:59 am
@Leadfoot,
I have perfect hind sight.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2021 12:25 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I have perfect hind sight.


That's what it means to have analyze.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 10:08:17