PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

Thanks for that attempt to turn your experience into a study.

However, I think I'll stick to the assessments of the professionals who understand that a PRC-test with a cycle threshold of 40 spits out false positives somewhere in the neighborhood of 90%. Tony even said it.

Like which one? Don't be shy. Which link are you talking about? What exactly information did you think was useless?

This is not clear - one it says "up to..." not 90% so it could be 5% or it could be 89%. Second, it does not say they tested positive - it just said that up to 90% of people tested for COVID-19 --- there is no mention of the result.

It is not clear what they are getting at - no mention that these trace amounts come to the conclusion that the test result stated it was positive just that there are trace amounts of the virus.

I agree I think the numbers for positives cases are higher than the actual true cases of covid - my daughters false positive was recorded and she got a call from the state for tracing purposes. But I think your 90% is far fetched.

Also compare my daughter's situation - and multiple that by all the other colleges that are doing the same thing - testing their athletes (and sometimes just the plain old regular students) multiple times a week. The team cannot play if anyone on the team tests positive. If the false positives were 90%, none of the colleges and none of the various sports teams would be playing at all.

Didn't we just have March Madness?

Very good! You've just made the case that the PCR-test was absolutely useless when it comes to determinations. Thank you.

No this article did - it is not even clear what they are trying to explain.

"Second, it does not say they tested positive - it just said that up to 90% of people tested for COVID-19 --- there is no mention of the result.

It is not clear what they are getting at - no mention that these trace amounts come to the conclusion that the test result stated it was positive just that there are trace amounts of the virus."

Hmm.

How did they determine which positive return was truly a case? Did they include clinical observation in their diagnosis, or did they just count every positive test result as a case?

Tony: “…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…”

You believe him, right?

I work with PhD's all the time. They argue like cats and dogs, each with a strong opinion supported by their experiences and education. I can find experts, truly experts, to support any reasonable hypothesis I have. But not all hypotheses are created equal. If your hypothesis can't explain the observations, you need to go back to the drawing board. My company has been testing all employees coming back into the plant twice a week for months. The cost of a false positive is very high, we have to implement contact tracing and deep cleaning as well as quarantining vital employees. I don't know of any false positives. If 90% of positives were false, the costs of responding to false positives would far outweigh the benefits and we wouldn't do it. You are asserting a 90% false positive rate. Show us the data to back that up. We're talking about millions of tests here, right? For someone who castigates us for blindly following experts, you seem to be doing the same. Yes, some experts question the threshold. Is there any data to support their statements?

I don't understand this thread; multiple people discussing the technical details of PCR testing with someone who doesn't believe covid exists.

I will leave again now. But, I have to say I am amused that this thread has gone on so long.

Well that settles it, then, doesn't it?

Now, how did they determine which positive return was truly a case? Did they include clinical observation in their diagnosis, or did they just count every positive test result as a case?

Is that how it worked?

Tony: “…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…”

You believe him, right?

Of course you do. Therefore, we need you to take that next step and allow yourself to accept that what he's saying is that the PCR-test was set at a cycle threshold that made the test meaningless. I'm afraid neither you nor you PhD friends are going to convince anyone that a test that tony declared meaningless is somehow meaningful because you haven't heard of any false positives. Just how meaningful do you think the the test is? I'm serious! 10%, 20% . . .

Who said this:

“Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

"Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information."
____________________________________________________________________________

I can't think of a better way of saying that the test is just about useless?

Oh, and how does the PCR-test determine the amount of virus, the state of the virus, and the identity of the virus?

Ninety people who received positive COVID-19 results did not have the virus, according to the state Department of Public Health (you should call them and straighten them out).

Experts: US COVID-19 positivity rate high due to 'too sensitive' tests

Up to 90 percent of people tested for COVID-19 in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada in July carried barely any traces of the virus and it could be because today's tests are 'too sensitive', experts say.

Health experts say PCR testing - the most widely used diagnostic test for COVID-19 in the US - are too sensitive and need to be adjusted to rule out people who have insignificant amounts of the virus in their systems because they're likely not contagious.

Today the PCR test, which provides a yes or no answer if a patient is infected, doesn't say how much of the virus a patient has in their body.

PCR tests analyze genetic matter from the virus in cycles and today's tests typically take 37 or 40 cycles, but experts say this is too high because it detects very small amounts of the virus that don't pose a risk.

Doctors say fewer cycle thresholds, meaning the number of cycles needed to detect the virus, hone in on those with greater amounts of the virus who do pose risks, according to the New York Times.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

What could it mean?

Oh hey! Have you heard anything about the WHO changing its recommendations concerning the cycle threshold of the PCR-test used to detect covid?

Well they did.

Actually I did. Still doesn't mean that the prior tests caused 90% false positives. You would think and expect certain tweaks as a result of the "newness" of the testing and the virus.

When did they make the changes?

Oh but wait. You never did acknowledge that the PCR-test was deemed meaningless. So why don't you do that right now so that we can talk about the changes in guidelines?

Now that we've cleared that up, would anyone care to start a thread about what the "vaccine" is, and what it isn't, and what it does and what doesn't do.

Well that sounds like a party and a half, but I'll just read along.

What the hell Glennn, I’ll bite. But let’s look at this ‘vaccine' from a different angle.

Technically you’re right, it isn’t a vaccine in the traditional sense. It is functionally completely different. I don’t want to get into easily disproved bs like it has nano bots to control your mind, etc. And I haven’t seen an audience here that can follow a conversation on molecular biology, so let’s look at it ‘simplistically' but logically. Here's my take, feel free to criticize.

True facts (that most would agree with and from credible sources):

The Covid ‘vaccine(s)' are a completely new type of treatment utilizing mRNA. They do not target a specific virus like typical vaccines but boost the body’s natural defenses, that is why it works on all variants/mutations of the virus. This is very unlike the flu vaccines that have to be developed individually at great expense every year. Sounds pretty good, no?

Most new treatments take ten or more years to be developed and tested. Covid-19 ‘vaccine' was done in a matter of months. That is truly ‘miraculous' as some have said. And not once but by a dozen or more research groups in various countries and companies.
Pretty impressive, eh? A ‘vaccine' that only boosts the body’s own defenses, works on all variants, and shows promise as a treatment for a wide variety of diseases.

Let’s take it on the word of the experts and government agencies that they told us the honest truth in every case.

Here’s my problem with this. I know it really does take a long time to develop and test radically new treatments like this. And to have this ‘miracle' duplicated almost simultaneously a dozen times all over the world by different groups is not only miraculous, it is statistically impossible (almost as unlikely as life by chance).

This means that the technology behind this ‘vaccine' has been widely known for a long time.
So let me pose the question of -

Why has such a revolutionary technology that works with and boosts our natural immune system, works against all virus variants and shows promise against a wide variety of diseases been withheld from the public? Is it 'too good to be true', is it just working on the placebo effect, or would it threaten too many 'jobs' if it was released?

I’m not saying either way, but it makes me wonder. What do you think.

Leadfoot, I think it has to do with the billions that were doled out to the manufacturers. It was unprecedented to see so much money invested in vaccine development in such a short time on such a wide scale. Not really "miraculous", it's just that governments reacted quickly and generously out of real fear.

Exactly, mRNA has been around for 20 years and was considered as a great technology that could dramatically improve vaccine development but it couldn't get government funding over proven, existing technologies. The pandemic changed all of that.

Hilarious. They knew they had this silver bullet all the time but government refused to fund it.

I would conclude that the government’s motive for withholding funding was 'its all about the jobs', based on what you and hightor said.
And all for a fraction of the cost of ‘Covid recovery' programs. Hilarious.

Or you could interpret it as "we will fund what we know" as governments are generally risk averse and conservative in their funding decisions.