PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Linkat already responded to your question.

I see. Since you're supporting linkat's opinion, you're going to have to answer for him.

linkat said:

By helping prevent these patients from contracting COVID-19, the vaccine helps prevent additional pain and symptoms that could compound with their current condition, along with possible death from the virus. It also adds protection for caregivers, family and loved ones who might spend time with those receiving hospice and palliative care.

And one thing I did not think of - if they do not get vaccinated then they need to follow other proto calls including not having visitors.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, how does what he said make sense in light of the fact that this experimental treatment does not prevent infection or transmission? The treatment is not even said to offer immunity until weeks . . . after second injection. So yeah, go ahead and finish linkat's thought. He thinks that after getting the treatment, these people on their deathbeds will be protected from infecting others and from being infected. And both you and hightor mistakenly believe that it will confer herd immunity even though you've also said that it's only supposed to diminish symptoms.

So you go ahead and fill in all the holes in linkat's baseless theory.

Quote:

No thanks. I’m sure you’re convinced by your own conspiracy theory anyway.

Okay, you're taking denial to a whole new level. You think those people who attested to the fact that setting the cycle threshold of the PCR-test at 40 would guarantee meaningless results are imaginary people or part of a conspiracy?

Anyway, tell me where I got it wrong when I wrote this:

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?
_______________________________________________________________________________________

If you fail to offer anything to disprove what I've said, I'll take that as a concession on your part that you have nothing.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Linkat already responded to your question.

I see. Since you're supporting linkat's opinion, you're going to have to answer for him.

I’m going to have to? How, exactly, am I going to have to?

Glenn wrote:

Now, how does what he said make sense in light of the fact that this experimental treatment does not prevent infection or transmission? The treatment is not even said to offer immunity until weeks . . . after second injection. So yeah, go ahead and finish linkat's thought. He thinks that after getting the treatment, these people on their deathbeds will be protected from infecting others and from being infected.

So you go ahead and fill in all the holes in linkat's baseless theory.

The thought is finished as it is. Your beating a dead horse doesn’t change the fact.

Glenn wrote:

And both you and hightor mistakenly believe that it will confer herd immunity even though you've also said that it's only supposed to diminish symptoms.

Where did I ever mention herd immunity?

Diminished symptoms is only one effect of the vaccinations. They can also help prevent infections. The vaccine was designed as a prophylactic against the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its associated disease, COVID-19.

Glenn wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
No thanks. I’m sure you’re convinced by your own conspiracy theory anyway.

Okay, you're taking denial to a whole new level. You think those people who attested to the fact that setting the cycle threshold of the PCR-test at 40 would guarantee meaningless results are imaginary people or part of a conspiracy?

Denial about what, exactly? That's it a conspiracy?

So, you don’t believe this issue you’re harping about is part of a conspiracy, especially after having written that “they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic”?

Glenn wrote:

Anyway, tell me where I got it wrong when I wrote this:

There was even a New York Times article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives.

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?
_______________________________________________________________________________________

If you fail to offer anything to disprove what I've said, I'll take that as a concession on your part that you have nothing.

You’re misrepresenting the New York Times article, and basing your conspiracy theory on your misrepresentation.

The Times article states that, “in three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

90 percent of people testing positive carrying barely any virus is one thing, An asseveration of a 90 percent false positive rate is quite another thing.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

I’m going to have to? How, exactly, am I going to have to?

You referred me to linkat's post in answer to why on earth the morons in authority would give this experimental treatment to people on the verge of dying. Are you now trying to remove yourself from that kind of stupidity. That would be nice, but both you and hightor praised linkat's justification for treating dying people because it would keep everyone safe from infection and transmission. However, you have offered nothing to support a claim that even the manufacturer knew better than to make.

So, unless you have something to back up linkat's explanation for giving an experimental drug to people on the verge of dying, we will move on to your next non point. So link me to something if you would please.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote:

90 percent of people testing positive carrying barely any virus is one thing, An asseveration of a 90 percent false positive rate is quite another thing.

Dude! Tony himself has said that a cycle threshold of anything above 35 will give meaningless results. Would you care to explain how it is that all of the alleged medical authorities didn't know that? Or, why tony didn't set them straight. You're a conman's dream come true. Go ahead and tell us all the virtues of a PCR-test with a cycle threshold set to give meaningless results.

Quote:

Where did I ever mention herd immunity?

Are you on the verge of denying that this experimental treatment is going to confer herd immunity? Cuz ya know, that would be a bold statement in view of all the pushing of this experimental treatment as the only way we're going to achieve herd immunity. I believe I've heard that from numerous authoritative sources; sources I'm sure you would agree with.
Where did I ever mention herd immunity?

2 Replies

Quote:

The Times article states that, “in three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

90 percent of people testing positive carrying barely any virus is one thing, An asseveration of a 90 percent false positive rate is quite another thing.

Pretty funny. Is that like being 'barely a little pregnant'?

And it kind of illustrates what Glennn is talking about. If there is 'barely any virus', Setting the PCR threshold high is exactly what would lead to a high positive test rate.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

And yet it doesn't. People at my manufacturing plant get tested weekly, no explosion of false positives. It is one thing to take these observations and form them into a hypothesis, but the hypothesis doesn't match real world data. We don't have a screaming problem with false positives. That is the problem with this entire thread. If this issue was as significant as claimed, you should readily be able to detect the results and you can't. That should give you pause.

2 Replies

@engineer,

You are talking about a totally different group of people tested. How can you compare them? (Rhetorical) Perhaps your group did not have 'barely any virus'.

You’re supposed to be an engineer.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

That would be nice, but both you and hightor praised linkat's justification for treating dying people because it would keep everyone safe from infection and transmission.

You very much enjoy twisting things - it has been done throughout this thread.

For one - I did not justify this. I actually was agreeing with you that it seemed odd that you would give any sort of treatment to a person in hospice since the purpose of hospice is not to prolong life it is to make end of life as comfortable and as a high quality is possible. Since I was curious and have had experienced hospice due to my dad; I looked this up on a local hospice website and elsewhere.

I found the explanation that I provided - so it is not a justification, but an explanation as to why they would provide a vaccine such as the covid vaccine to those in hospice. I did, before finding this explanation, surmise it is likely due to minimize pain and suffering since that is a big part of hospice care and found that is the main reason they do provide it. Secondary is to help prevent spreading covid to caregivers and also then allowing the patients to have family visits. Which is huge quality of life for them.

Whether you agree or not the vaccine would do this is a different issue. But I was simply answering your question of why they would do this. Which makes logical sense (under the assumption that this vaccine would provide this).

For the 90% thing - we all know that this must be false - or at least it has not be proven in reality. Even if you assume engineer is lying about the fact that his workplace tests everyone and there have not been droves of people out because 90% of them are testing positive...everyone has seen this is not true.

To me the most obvious is sports - because it is all over in the public eye and not coming from one person's personal experience. We had March maddness a couple of months ago - most teams were able to play - there were a couple that could not due to covid and had to drop out but over 90% did get to play. All the players were tested regularly - you would have expected the opposite to happen whereas most teams could not play if 90% of their tests were positive (whether false or otherwise). But that did not happen. Also we have professional sports and other collegiate sports going on. Here and there - players/teams have been unable to play due to covid. Again it has been very limited circumstances this occurred. Whereas if there were 90% false positives you would see the opposite where most players and teams were unable to play .... there would be no sports as a result.

So what you spouting does not even make logical sense as you can see in reality that is not occurring. You can keep posting and saying the same thing over and over - but no logical or reasonable person will believe you because they can all see in front of their faces this is not happening. You could also spout that the sky is green and support this through any oddball studies but you are not going to convince anyone that can look out their door and into the sky and see otherwise.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Exactly! If you hypothesize that the PCR detection threshold is set incorrectly producing a high number of false positives, you should able to take that hypothesis to a completely different test group to see the results. My company has manufacturing plants all over the country and we don't see a high, false positive rate. I think asking the question about whether the detection threshold is correct is a valid one. There is a significant risk to false negatives and a significant cost to false positives. It is important to get the threshold right. But the statement that the threshold is off on the side of false positives is not supported by the results we are seeing in the population.

1 Reply

@engineer,

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…

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Quote:

Secondary is to help prevent spreading covid to caregivers and also then allowing the patients to have family visits.

Not even the manufacturer claims that their experimental treatment confers protection from infection or transmission.

In this case, cognitive dissonance describes the condition whereby someone (you) being shown that not even the manufacturer claims that their experimental treatment confers protection from infection or transmission will still continue on as if they didn't hear it. That is what you are doing when you pretend that it does what it doesn't.

Quote:

You can keep posting and saying the same thing over and over

As long as you keep repeating your claim about this experimental treatment that not even the manufacturer will make, I'm going to point out your denial
of that fact each and every time.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Let me concede right now that neither of us has enough raw data to know what the whole story is. I do not know what the timeframe of Glennn's example study was but I assume it was early on in the process of test development. Have they changed or adjusted it? Where did the original sample come from? I might assume they were working with people who had known exposure to the virus.

My main point is that the source article being cited was so bereft of real data that I would not draw any conclusion. I mean, 'having barely any virus'? WTF is that supposed to mean?

But looking at everything that the public has access to, my own conclusion is that the government's primary goal (in just about everything) is to convince people that 'they' know how best to handle the situation. I don’t believe they do but I guess it’s necessary to keep the chickens calm by lying to them. I hate being treated like a child by my own government. But now I’m just venting..

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

As long as you keep repeating your claim about this experimental treatment that not even the manufacturer will make, I'm going to point out your denial of that fact each and every time.

This is what you keep twisting - you seem to be the type of person that just likes to argue as you keep putting words in my mouth -

I never made this claim - same as I never made the claim of the other items you said I did.

I am pointing out the whys that hospice has given and what they claim since you asked the question - I am not saying one way or the other. I am not a doctor nor medical person so I am stating their whys. They have their reasons and that is all I stated.

If I had someone in hospice currently - and they determine the only way for me to see my loved one and/or they felt the only way his/her caregivers would feel safe from covid were to be if this patient would get a covid vaccination - I would say - sure, I am fine with that as long as my loved one was ok with it.

All I can vouch as far as the local hospice I had dealt with is they are about the most amazing group of people I have met. They are caring and considerate about the patient and their family. We had in home care for my dad and they would visit regularly - they were as concerned with the family as well as the patient. They have a tough job and they do it with true love, care and consideration. They were a true comfort to my mom and our family - and they seem to be very sound medically. I have no reason to doubt them and whether this vaccine actually helps or not - it is probably the best solution under the circumstances for these kind and thoughtful caregivers.

Whether it does what they claim or not is no matter to me. But if it made everyone else feel better and that was the only way to spend time with them - I have no issue.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

But looking at everything that the public has access to, my own conclusion is that the government's primary goal (in just about everything) is to convince people that 'they' know how best to handle the situation. I don’t believe they do but I guess it’s necessary to keep the chickens calm by lying to them. I hate being treated like a child by my own government. But now I’m just venting..

This I can agree with. At least the government side of things - not sure all the public are chickens though. But I am with you on trusting the government having control on all.

The other stuff is an exaggeration.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

I get the sentiment, but I'll disagree. Fishermen don't think anyone should limit their catches but if all fishermen all allowed to overfish, the fishery is destroyed. You might not like the police telling you to turn the partying down at 1am, but your neighbors deserve some peace in their homes. You might think it is foolish to stop for school busses but a little inconvenience is worth it to keep kids safe. We make all sorts of small compromises with our government for the common good and the bigger the problem, the more we benefit from collective action. Honestly, this pandemic has been insane and unlike a lot of problems that slowly get progressively worse so people can see the problem growing, this can go from nothing to full collapse in a very short period of time making it hard for people to come to terms with. India is the prime example right now. It was doing really great for the pandemic, then over a period of two weeks it exploded, but there are less dramatic examples in the US, places where the pandemic was slow to arrive then hit in force when local officials didn't take it seriously. The government has a responsibility to explain its actions and gain public support, but it also has to take action when required. The idea that "government is the problem" is a poison in our society. Elect a government that represents you, that you have confidence in and monitor it closely, but be willing to act for the good of all.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Infrablue wrote:
I’m going to have to? How, exactly, am I going to have to?

You referred me to linkat's post in answer to why on earth the morons in authority would give this experimental treatment to people on the verge of dying. Are you now trying to remove yourself from that kind of stupidity. That would be nice, but both you and hightor praised linkat's justification for treating dying people because it would keep everyone safe from infection and transmission. However, you have offered nothing to support a claim that even the manufacturer knew better than to make.

So, unless you have something to back up linkat's explanation for giving an experimental drug to people on the verge of dying, we will move on to your next non point. So link me to something if you would please.

You're beating a dead horse.

Next.

Glenn wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
90 percent of people testing positive carrying barely any virus is one thing, An asseveration of a 90 percent false positive rate is quite another thing.

Dude! Tony himself has said that a cycle threshold of anything above 35 will give meaningless results. Would you care to explain how it is that all of the alleged medical authorities didn't know that? Or, why tony didn't set them straight. You're a conman's dream come true. Go ahead and tell us all the virtues of a PCR-test with a cycle threshold set to give meaningless results.

That's been explained to you early on.

You're chasing your own tail.

Next.

Glenn wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Where did I ever mention herd immunity?

Are you on the verge of denying that this experimental treatment is going to confer herd immunity? Cuz ya know, that would be a bold statement in view of all the pushing of this experimental treatment as the only way we're going to achieve herd immunity. I believe I've heard that from numerous authoritative sources; sources I'm sure you would agree with.
Where did I ever mention herd immunity?

Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe

Widely circulating coronavirus variants and persistent hesitancy about vaccines will keep the goal out of reach. The virus is here to stay, but vaccinating the most vulnerable may be enough to restore normalcy.

more. . .

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The Times article states that, “in three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

90 percent of people testing positive carrying barely any virus is one thing, An asseveration of a 90 percent false positive rate is quite another thing.

Pretty funny. Is that like being 'barely a little pregnant'?

Um, pregnancy is a little different than an infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Stick to copying and pasting articles about proteins just to conclude that you don't buy evolution.

Leadfoot wrote:

And it kind of illustrates what Glennn is talking about. If there is 'barely any virus', Setting the PCR threshold high is exactly what would lead to a high positive test rate.

No, it doesn't, not by a long shot.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I get the sentiment, but I'll disagree. Fishermen don't think anyone should limit their catches but if all fishermen all allowed to overfish, the fishery is destroyed. You might not like the police telling you to turn the partying down at 1am, but your neighbors deserve some peace in their homes. You might think it is foolish to stop for school busses but a little inconvenience is worth it to keep kids safe. We make all sorts of small compromises with our government for the common good and the bigger the problem, the more we benefit from collective action. Honestly, this pandemic has been insane and unlike a lot of problems that slowly get progressively worse so people can see the problem growing, this can go from nothing to full collapse in a very short period of time making it hard for people to come to terms with. India is the prime example right now. It was doing really great for the pandemic, then over a period of two weeks it exploded, but there are less dramatic examples in the US, places where the pandemic was slow to arrive then hit in force when local officials didn't take it seriously. The government has a responsibility to explain its actions and gain public support, but it also has to take action when required. The idea that "government is the problem" is a poison in our society. Elect a government that represents you, that you have confidence in and monitor it closely, but be willing to act for the good of all.

I should be more clear - I am not meaning no government control --- I should say limited government control -

I think they have been overreaching in some instances. Like for instance here locally they just lifted that you do not need to wear masks outside. Really? I have not wore masks outside. I bring one with me in case I end up being near others. But I go for a walk in the woods - I keep my mask off unless I approach someone. It is stupid - the deer and squirrels are not in danger of me.

Also locally some towns/cities are still mandating the wearing of masks outside. Why? It seems like they give little credit for people has a level of intelligence. I have some places say instead bring a mask with you so if you cannot distance outside you put on your mask. To me it is like holding a door open when someone is behind you - you do so because you do not want to hurt someone with it slamming in their face.

Yes there will be some people who won't carry a mask or won't put it on if there near others, but you know what? Whether there is a rule in place or not they won't do it. I just stay away from people like that.

The thing is if you are a half way intelligent person and they put in place inane rules you lose trust in the government. At least provide a reasonable explanation why me walking in the woods with no one within shooting distance is going to be impacted if I do not wear a mask.

The things you mention all make sense and reasonable people understand this. So even if you are a selfish person, you realize there is a understandable reason. Making arbitrary rules without having anything backing it up causes intelligent people to distrust their government.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Um, pregnancy is a little different than an infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Sharp eye there IB.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Quote:

I should be more clear - I am not meaning no government control ---

They always scream 'Anarchy!' at any criticism of government.
That’s why I call'em chickens.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

You're beating a dead horse.

Why is it that whenever I ask you to explain how an experimental treatment is going to offer protection from infection and transmission when even the manufacturer has never made that claim about it, you believe that saying "You're beating a dead horse" is some kind of answer.

It looks like you just want to forget about linkat's theory that the experimental treatment will protect dying people from infection and transmission so that they can finally hug their loved ones because it's just not true. Such stories are brought to you because you'll believe anything.

Quote:

You're chasing your own tail.

Dude! Tony himself has said that a cycle threshold of anything above 35 will give meaningless results. Would you care to explain how it is that all of the alleged medical authorities didn't know that? Or, why tony didn't set them straight. You're a conman's dream come true. Go ahead and tell us all the virtues of a PCR-test with a cycle threshold set to give meaningless results.

And now you're hoping that saying I'm chasing my own tail will give the impression that you've already responded to this. But a casual review of this thread indicates that you haven't answered this at all. You're just a hopeless apologist for authority figures you believe just never touched base when it came to what a reasonable and MEANINGFUL cycle threshold is. Just think, if those guys over at the CDC had listened to tony, they wouldn't have set the cycle threshold so high as to give meaningless results.

Quote:

Widely circulating coronavirus variants and persistent hesitancy about vaccines will keep the goal out of reach. The virus is here to stay, but vaccinating the most vulnerable may be enough to restore normalcy.

LOL!! You're doing it again. This experimental treatment DOES NOT CONFER IMMUNITY. I've already told you that the manufacturer has never claimed that their experimental treatment will prevent infection or transmission. That's from the horse's mouth. That's why it can be said that you are in some serious denial.

2 Replies

PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know