Why Life Jackets Should Be Mandatory

You've selected the facts which you think are important and presented them out of context.

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know any of these people.

I told you before – I'm not interested in your truth crusade.

Comparing vaccines to life jackets is sort of like comparing apples to oranges – only stupider.

Now, stop stalling and give the proper context.

Also, what did you think about the political stars in that video putting their face-diapers on for the camera, and then taking them off when they thought no one was watching them?

I only asked you how many boosters you'll accept before becoming frustrated with the results.

You seem specifically interested in portraying that question as a truth crusade.

Did the experimental-injection confer immunity . . . EVER?

Dec. 30, 2021. A widely shared claim on social media has brought the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's decision to retire its PCR test for COVID-19 back into the spotlight.

"CDC Withdraws Use of PCR Test for COVID and Finally Admits the Test Can Not Differentiate Between the Flu and COVID Virus," reads the screenshot of a Gateway Pundit [ha-ha!] headline posted on Instagram on Dec. 29.

The Gateway Pundit article, posted the same day, refers to the CDC's decision in July to withdraw the PCR test in 2022 that the agency created. The screenshot was liked more than 1,000 times in less than 24 hours. Other posts also received hundreds of likes in just a few hours.

But the claim badly mangles the facts.

The CDC's PCR test will be removed from the list of tests under emergency use authorization because the demand for it has decreased with the authorization of other diagnostic tests – not because it confuses viruses. Experts say the test would not show false positives for COVID-19 if the person only had the flu.

USA TODAY reached out to the user who posted the claim and to Gateway Pundit for comment.

CDC's PCR test does not confuse COVID-19 and flu

The Gateway Pundit article claims the CDC admitted the soon-to-be-retired PCR test "can not differentiate between the flu and COVID virus."

It claimed flu cases were so low in 2020, then, because the test was counting flu cases as COVID-19. But that's nonsense. Gateway Pundit was misunderstanding the use of the term differentiate.

In an August news release, the CDC wrote the PCR test was specifically designed only to detect the viral genetic material of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 – not influenza, which causes the flu.

"It does not detect influenza or differentiate between influenza and SARS-CoV-2," the website states.

In other words, it's not that the test can't tell the two apart, it's that the test was designed only to detect COVID-19. The CDC spelled this one by noting someone with the flu would not create a false positive for COVID-19 with this test.

Experts told USA TODAY in July it's "technically impossible" for the CDC's PCR test to confuse SARS-CoV-2 and the influenza virus.

PCR tests identify and amplify converted viral RNA until the virus's genetic makeup can be detected and analyzed.

In this case, since the CDC's PCR test was made to only identify SARS-Cov-2, it cannot detect or confuse the genetic sequences of another virus such as influenza, according to Dr. Petros Giannikopoulos, medical director of the Innovative Genomics Institute’s COVID-19 testing consortium.

CDC withdrawing PCR test to focus on other goals

On July 21, the CDC announced it would withdraw the request for an emergency use authorization for the agency-developed PCR test after Dec. 31.

The test will be removed because the Food and Drug Administration, which is in charge of approving the use of medical devices and vaccines, has authorized "hundreds" of other COVID-specific tests similar to the CDC's, the agency said in an Aug. 2 clarification after the announcement sparked confusion.

"CDC began distributing the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel to fill a gap," the release said. "The wide availability of other SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests means that the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is no longer filling an unmet need."

The discontinuation, which only applies to the CDC-manufactured test and not other diagnostic tests authorized for use by the FDA, would also let the CDC "focus its resources on public health surveillance testing and other response activities," according to the release.

Fact check: Chris Wallace's CNN+ show has not yet debuted

Jasmine Reed, a CDC spokeswoman, told USA TODAY in July the agency also wanted to encourage laboratories to start using tests that can detect the influenza virus and COVID-19 in the same swab to conserve time and resources.

The CDC has its own test that can detect and differentiate COVID-19 and the influenza A and B viruses. That test is not being withdrawn.

USA TODAY reached out to the CDC for comment.

Our rating: False

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that the CDC withdrew the use of its PCR test and admitted it can't distinguish between the flu and COVID-19. The CDC is withdrawing the test, but it has nothing to do with the flu. The agency-created PCR test simply isn't needed because hundreds of tests from private companies have addressed this need and been approved by the FDA. The CDC test properly showed positive results only for COVID-19; a person with the flu could not test positive for COVID-19 using the CDC test, experts say.

Our fact-check sources:

The Gateway Pundit, Dec. 29, Huge. CDC Withdraws Use of PCR Test for COVID and Finally Admits the Test Can Not Differentiate Between the Flue and COVID Virus
CDC, July 21, Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
CDC, Aug. 2, Lab Alert: Clarifications about the Retirement of the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCov) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
USA TODAY, July 29, Fact check: CDC test doesn't conflate COVID-19 virus with influenza
CDC, Oct. 6, Multiplex Assay for Flu & SARS-CoV-2

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

Why would I think anything about something that insignificant?

Why would I get frustrated? I'm not the one designing the mRNA vaccines, I'm just being offered a free injection.

You should be asking the vaccine manufacturers, as they have a lot more stake in the efficacy of their product.

Vaccines don't necessarily confer immunity against variants of the disease they were originally designed for.

Why would I get frustrated? I'm not the one designing the mRNA vaccines, I'm just being offered a free injection.

You should be asking the vaccine manufacturers, as they have a lot more stake in the efficacy of their product.

Vaccines don't necessarily confer immunity against variants of the disease they were originally designed for.

You don't care that the ones ordering you to wear a mask don't do so when you're not looking?

Most everyone else would see that as hypocrisy and an indication that they're not really worried about it at all.

If you're not frustrated, you should be.

But I'm asking you what your tolerance is concerning the number of experimental injections you'll accept before realizing that it DOES NOT CONFER IMMUNITY.

You believe the experimental-injection conferred immunity to covid?

globalresearch.ca

Where did you find it?

I see it as a pretty natural human response to discomfort, an example of the "it won't happen to me" attitude, and possibly an indication of people's trust in the vaccine.

Why? I don't consider getting an injection to be a problem.

I believe it altered the course of the infection in those cases where vaccinated individuals got the disease and prevented . . .

Gee, I think maybe it was in Gateway Pundit.

You're apologizing for them.

I'm referring to the number of injections you're willing to take.

How many flu shots did you get this year?

I already know what you believe.

Condemning the source is a poor way to answer the question.

So, when I ask you to provide some kind of verification of the purification/isolation of the virus, it's because of what the CDC said.

I can't "apologize" for something I didn't do.

I didn't even see the incident you're so worked up over.

were only wearing them for show.

But each injection will be "an injection"

You're right, this is my "belief"; I don't know it to be a fact. Is it your contention that fully-vaccinated people contract as serious a version of the disease as the non-vaccinated population? I haven't heard that; can you provide evidence?

Relying on biased sources . . .

I have no obligation to answer your question anyway.

But you are one of the ones who apologize for them when they get caught.

But for now, you're talking about what you didn't see.

I'm asking you whether or not you have a limit to the number of treatments you're willing to take before you will call it a failed "vaccine."

You believe that you'll suffer less if you take the experimental-injection. I don't believe you.

...how would you explain his and others' silence while labs around the world did just that?

No, any apology would have to come from the people directly involved. All I can do is suggest possible reasons for their behavior.

Videos taken out of context and used satirically by a conspiritualist aren't particularly convincing.

Evidently you haven't been paying attention to the differences in the severity of the disease between unvaccinated patients and people with breakthrough infections.

I already informed you, I don't intend to be cross-examined and I'm not interested in your truth crusade. This thread is about your pitiful life jacket analogy, which was an insult to anyone's intelligence and fell apart under mild scrutiny.

Again with making claims about something you have yet to see.

Also, I believe you were going to address what they used as a reference point for the virus.

I viewed it before making my comment.

Looks like you believed incorrectly.

Really?

In post #7,189,412, in response to me asking what you think about them all taking their face-diapers off in unison, you said that you see it as a pretty natural human response to discomfort, an example of the "it won't happen to me" attitude. In post #7,189,606 you said that you didn't even see the incident I am referring to.

It's show biz.

I had plenty of time to look at the video in the 7 hours between my second and third reply.