PCR-Test Cycle-Threshold Issues

Factfinder

@Phite

You raise very valid concerns. Indeed I've suspected some manipulation at the onset of covid the way it was immediately politicized worse than even aids was. Then shortly after Trump dismissed the dire predictions of covid as 'hysterics', the democrats all of a sudden wanted to overreact openly just to discredit Trump. It was Fauci who advised Trump to lock down the country, so I do see your concern. Of course when Trump said the virus came from China, the liberals (Pelosi) encouraged Chinatown in SF to party in the streets in defiance while at the same time criticizing Trump for not taking the threat of a deadly pandemic serious and for being racist, and not following the science when mask mandates soon emerged. Though prominent democrats socialized and partied through the whole pandemic never adhering to mandates or worrying about getting sick. Yeah, something never smelled right about this whole corona virus pandemic however I don't believe this isolated case discredits the historical success of vaccines in general.

Thanks for starting this thread. I would like to see what defenders of Fauci and the fda have to say. 

This site expands a little on what you said and elaborates some on how we may as a nation might of had a 90% false positive rate that caused an economic hole we may not get out of if it's anything like California...

https://www.trillianthealth.com/strategy/counterpoint/the-law-of-holes-pcr-cycle-thresholds-and-the-hotel-california

Factfinder

@Phite

They'll say that it doesn't matter that two of their trusted authority figures contradict each other when it comes to an appropriate cycle-threshold for the PCR-test.  It just doesn't matter to them.

Appears your prediction is coming to pass...

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/200405/#Comment_200405

Phite

Yeah, Newsome got caught without his mask.  So he apologized, but said he was outdoors.  However, another photo shows that he was indoors.  He lied, and he hopes it doesn't matter to the people he lied to, and he was not disappointed.

The people running the country are probably laughing there asses off at us for wearing face-diapers.

Check out this video of our trusted politicians indicating in no uncertain terms that they're not the least bit worried about covid.  They know that the mask mandate is bullshyt.

Go to the 7:00 mark.

They're not the least bit worried about the virus, are they?  Now why would that be?  However, they do demand that you be worried and to get that damned mask on and keep it on.

And people still believe they're not being lied to.

Phite

@Factfinder

I would like to see what defenders of fauci and the fda have to say.

They're going to say the only thing they can say.  They'll say that it doesn't matter that two of their trusted authority figures contradict each other when it comes to an appropriate cycle-threshold for the PCR-test.  It just doesn't matter to them.

Factfinder

@Phite

Check out this video of our trusted politicians indicating in no uncertain terms that they're not the least bit worried about covid.  They know that the mask mandate is bullshyt.

LOL I couldn't help but think to myself I bet the cabal behind the biden administration wishes that guy was on their side! 

jack

Phite said:

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?

Hello P:

I'm not the thread monitor so you can post anything, anywhere you want.  I'm cool with it.  But, my answer is the same.  I dunno.  You're asking me about something I know nothing about.   And, in spite of your scholarly papers, you know nothing about it either..  So, I'm fine with you believing your experts..  Maybe they're right..  

What's more germane here, is your inability to accept the possibility that you could be wrong.   That doesn't seem to bother you.  You are clearly hung up on something that objectively cannot be proven, and you're willing to die on that cross..

Well, good luck to ya.

excon

Factfinder

@jack

What's more germane here, is your inability to accept the possibility that you could be wrong.

What's also germane is what if he's right? Maybe not to you now; but I'd be willing to bet if Trump ruined a strong economy and was privy to the fact the covid policies enacted could be do to a likely 90% false positive reading for covid before hand and decreed authoritative measures anyway, placing unreasonable burdens on the public while Trump and his friends ignored the mandates? Yeah I bet you would drop that passive attitude in a heartbeat and demand investigations. I mean, you did raise alarm bells about what may happen when the new administration does take over with measle and polio vaccines so there is no reason to think you'd stand idly by if that were the circumstances during covid. So the question is it's not the possible destruction of our country that concerns you as much as it is which party can be blamed for it?

Phite

@jack

And, in spite of your scholarly papers, you know nothing about it either.

You're really going to pretend that the cycle-threshold the FDA recommended doesn't fly in the face of what fauci said?

Here's some other scholarly folks you're apt to also disagree with.  Or, you'll pretend that what they're saying is just too darn hard to understand.

 Covid-19 Quotations: Questioning PCR Reliability

“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

“…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.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Barnardot

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

Please state the New York Times article identifying the issue and quote in inverted commas what the New York Times stated that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives.

Phite

@Barnardot

Barnardot said:

@Phite Please state the New York Times article identifying the issue and quote in inverted commas what the New York Times stated that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

Out of all those quotes from all of those medical personnel and organizations, you jumped on that one?  Very telling. 

Why don't you address this one:

“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

Now, what are they telling you?

Barnardot

@Phite @Factfinder @jack Now, what are they telling you?

Absolutely nothing that has anything remotely to do with the claim you made.

The New York Times made no such comment (There was even a New York Times article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives.) anywhere in the article and you even avoided and failed to quote what I asked. Yes or no? Answer: Yes.

Your claim (and the premise of your argument) is 100% false and all you are doing is maliciously fabricating complete untruths to try and further promote your ugly, unfounded nonsense. You are a dishonest fraudster.

Phite

@Barnardot

You failed to read the quote I put up, didn't you?

Let's try again.

“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

That's pretty straight forward, ain't it?

I say it means that the PCR-test has not been established for monitoring treatment of covid, and that the test may not indicate the presence of infectious virus, or that covid is the causative agent, and that the test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

Your failure to understand plain English when it's shown to you indicates that you're in denial about what the CDC said because it's not what you've been told to believe.

Barnardot

@Phite In your post you said "There was even a New York Times article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives."

Absolutely nowhere at any time did the New York Times say any such thing.

Using tactics such as lying and deception is not a part of debating and gets you nowhere. Nor is gaslighting and being condescending. You have been caught out again. Every other member has told you so politely. I am not so polite towards menaces and anti-social, ignorant and ignorant di*ckwits so you should do everyone a favor and just get the eff off of this site and take your extreme propaganda lying with you.

Phite

@Barnardot

If you didn't believe the New York Times article, you should have cross-referenced it with other sources . . . like the dozen or so I've just shown you that you're not about to address because they prove that you don't know what you're talking about.

But let's take that one little limb you've crawled out onto and see if it's really there.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Recent data show that up to 90% of positive PCR tests in the U.S. aren’t infectious or harmful to individuals, leading to a proportionate inflation of the Covid-19 death rate

The New York Times dropped a quiet bombshell at the end of August with a story titled “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” It quotes a number of academics and researchers who express strong concerns about how the “gold standard” PCR tests for the coronavirus are being applied.

In short, the tests are being applied in a way that amplifies their sensitivity far beyond what is warranted for tracking current cases of Covid-19 — which is the ostensible purpose of the PCR test.

Here’s the money quote from the article:

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.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

The article never uses the term “false positive” but the primary researchers who track this issue do use this term. Jefferson et al. 2020 “Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment — a systematic review (Update 3)”, the third update issued by Jefferson’s team calibrating the accuracy of PCR tests (by using viral cultures) through comprehensive tracking of published test results around the world, concludes (emphasis added):

Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens are necessary for each country involved in the pandemic to establish the usefulness and reliability of PCR for Covid-19 and its relation to patients’ factors. Infectivity is related to the date of onset of symptoms and cycle threshold level. A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.

In layman’s terms, the PCR tests are being used overly aggressively to amplify a very small signal, which is probably in most cases dead viral fragments, through an excessive number of cycles. By going beyond the now-established cycle threshold (CT), for detecting live infections, of 25-30 cycles the PCR tests are creating an artificial positive test result through excessive amplification.

Another quote from the NY Times article:

“I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”

The NY Times article adds, quoting another virologist:

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.

Dr. Mina is Harvard Medical School epidemiologist Michael Mina, an assistant professor at the Center for Communicable Diseases. He also told the NY Times:

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, you didn't want to acknowledge this:

“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

Now it appears that the New York Times article you thought would prove your case turns out to not back your position at all.  It supports the other sources I brought to your attention that you refuse to acknowledge.

I have a feeling you're going to try to insult your way out of this.  Let's see!

Barnardot

@Phite ;If you didn't believe the New York Times article,

I believe the New York Times article 100%. I checked and double-checked. It is 100% right.

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

There is nowhere at all in the article or anywhere else in the New York Times that states any such thing. You lied.

The rest of what you said in your post above is your extreme, made-up speculation and malicious interpretation. 

Phite

@Barnardot

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

From which post did you quote me from?

Anyway, let's go slow so that you don't miss anything this time.

What does this mean to you?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The rest of what you said in your post above is your extreme, made-up speculation and malicious interpretation. 

Hmm.  My post contained the statements of others.  There was no "rest of my post."  What do you see that no one else does?

Oh, and you're still failing to give your interpretation of this:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, we're debating the PCR-test cycle threshold issue.  If you disagree with what the scholarly medical personnel and organizations I've quoted from have said, then make your case.  You're here to debate.  So explain how the above doesn't mean exactly what it says.

Barnardot

@Phite ;From which post did you quote me from?

The OP for your info and for the 10th time....it happens to be in black and white and nobody but you could have written it...you lied.

What does this mean to you?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.

Absolutely nothing and it means absolutely nothing to anyone else.
It might mean something to you but you are a pathological as has been proven and you are in denial about ever posting in the first place...It means 100% nothing

Phite

@Barnardot

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the virologists that the New York Times quoted in their article say that--well here, read it for yourself.  Again!

The NY Times article adds, quoting another virologist:

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.

And:

Dr. Mina is Harvard Medical School epidemiologist Michael Mina, an assistant professor at the Center for Communicable Diseases. He also told the NY Times:

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, how do you reconcile the fact that all of the medical officials and organizations whose quotes I put right in front of your eyes just happen to coincide with what these virologists have stated in the New York Times?

Like this one:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If, as you say, it means absolutely nothing, then why did they say it?  

Obviously you understand that the quote is accurate, but it states something about the PCR-test that you don't want to agree with, so you tell yourself it means nothing.  But . . . they said it, didn't they.  I quoted them all.  Fauci said that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results.  So, again, without getting hysterical, why do you suppose the FDA went against the science by recommending a cycle-threshold of 40?

Was it the FDA who screwed up, or was it fauci?  Can't have it both ways.

Barnardot

@Phite ;Was it the FDA who screwed up, or was it fauci?  Can't have it both ways.

No one screwed up and your OP is a complete lie. 

You have still failed to admit that you posted a 100% untruth in your OP (and even tried to say that you never said it).

Grasping at straws and trying desperately to find something in the article to mitigate your extreme views only illustrate that you are fully aware of your guilt and that you fully intended to spread malicious, contrived nonsense.

The non-committal, speculative opinions of 2 nutty, biased scientists locked in the basement of a university says nothing. 

Phrases such as "may not indicate the presence,  would set the figure, would have if the threshold..., that people would think, I would say.....say absolutely nothing and are used to deliberately make unqualified, malicious speculations. And people say that because they are like you, hold extreme views and do not wish to be caught out actually stating something.

Your OP is completely false and based on a false premise and a lie, the FDA and Fauci did not screw up, Fauci did not lie, Biden did not lie. Just like your vaccination beat up you have not one single piece of viable evidence to support your extreme, conspiratorial, false beliefs.

You are a menace to society.

Phite

No one screwed up and your OP is a complete lie.

Well sure!  And with a wave of your tongue, this:

_____________________________________________________________________

"this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

_____________________________________________________________________

just goes away.

But no.

You're wrong that the FDA didn't screw up when they used a cycle-threshold of 40.  Since I know you can read, I know you're not ignorant of the fact that fauci has clearly stated that anything over 35 will give meaningless results.  Yet you belligerently refuse acknowledge that the discrepancy between them means anything at all. The fact that one of them got it way wrong is indisputable.  And you have yet to explain how you came to the opposite conclusion, and you're going to yell about it rather than explain your thinking.

Also, do you believe that anything you've said somehow invalidates what all of the other medical officials and organizations I've quoted have said about the inappropriateness of the PCR-test cycle threshold being set at 40?  Explain how that works.  You'd have to believe that all of these quotes from all of the other people I've posted don't really exist.  But you know that they do!

“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

“…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.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You can't seriously believe that that's all made up or that none of them know what they're talking about.  You've brought nothing to the debate but your nonproductive disapproval of what you've been shown.  You need to open those links and find out whether or not all of those quotes were taken out of context.  If you really believe they are, pick one and we'll go from there.  But you have to bring something.

Here is exactly how the FDA worded their statement on the limitation of the PCR-test:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CDC-006-00019, Revision: 08 CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases Effective: 03/07/2023

• 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.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products
for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, in your own words, explain how that does not mean what it says.  And then explain how it means absolutely nothing about the PCR-test.

Barnardot

@Phite And still all your “could bes,“may nots, cannot rule outs, does not necessarily equates, estimates say it could be, may not necessarily means” say absolutely nothing… nothing at all. Repeat, nothing, zilch, zippo. You have quoted words that say absolutely nothing.The people who said that are fringe radicals who don’t want to lose their jobs so they say absolutely nothing by spouting out non-committal rhetoric to suck in dic*kheads who believe anything on the surface. And of course they fuel fellow radicals and extremists who pick up on the meaningless rhetoric and try to make it into the truth. 

But in the end it doesn’t work. Most people see through the extreme crap for what it is and see extremist conspiracy nuts for what they are…. menaces to society who are hellbent on forcing their wacko, extreme, wrong views on society.

Phite

@Barnardot

You're waving your arms again.

And of course they fuel fellow radicals and extremists who pick up on the meaningless rhetoric and try to make it into the truth.

CDC-006-00019, Revision: 08 CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases Effective: 03/07/2023

• 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.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products
for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So now the FDA was spouting meaningless rhetoric?

You think they're fringe?  That's kinda fringe thinking, don't you think.  What have you got against the FDA?

And I'm just curious, but when they say that the PCR-test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens, what do you hear?

Barnardot

@Phite ;So now the FDA was spouting meaningless rhetoric?

They didn't and I never said they did. I never said FDA is on the Fringe and I don't have anything against the FDA

The reporting "was spouting meaningless rhetoric" and I clearly showed you examples...three times.

but when they say that the PCR-test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens, what do you hear?

I hear nothing...I do not have voices in my head and I do not misinterpret anything. "They" means anyone and "cannot rule out" says exactly what it says, nothing, and nothing more. 

I cannot rule out that Donald Trump took off his clothes and ran down the street with a massive hard on........ I just said absolutely nothing.

You are typical of a lunatic extremist.....you choose to search for and maliciously misinterpret rhetorical, meaningless beat-up nonsense; you completely ignore and fail to disseminate facts....I had to go over the exact same points repeatedly after you asked the exact same questions.

You are a mentally ill extremist radicalised anti-establishment, anti-authority moron and a menace to society.....your lunatic reasoning, and (apparent) complete lack of reasonable comprehension have been clearly displayed.

MayCaesar

I do not know anything about the PCR test, but I will correct one obvious error in the OP: 90% false positive rate does not "mean no pandemic". 90% false positives implies 10% true positives, and when we are talking about millions of positives, we clearly are talking about a pandemic.

After doing some googling, it does not appear that your claim that the FDA's recommendation is the threshold of 40 is accurate either. Look here on page 18:

https://www.fda.gov/media/168321/download

9.1 Analyzing Data

1.) Confirm the Ct for the Positive Control is acceptable.

2.) Confirm the Ct for the Negative Control is acceptable.

a. Reactive (Positive/Detected): Samples which contain sufficient concentration
of template should demonstrate amplification exceeding the threshold and
background at or below the established cutoff (Ct ≤ 35). Results observed
meeting this criterion are reported as “Positive/Detected.”

b. Non-reactive (Not Detected): Samples which DO NOT contain SARS-CoV-2
RNA or that contain low levels of template should demonstrate amplification
ABOVE the cutoff (Ct > 35) or no amplification (“undetermined”). Results
observed meeting this criterion are reported as “Not Detected.”

c. Invalid (No Result Reported): Samples for which amplification is not observed
to exceed the cutoff (Ct ≤ 35) for the endogenous control assay, will be
interpreted as “Invalid.” Samples which are initially determined to be “Invalid”
may undergo a second preparation and analysis in the event some error may
have occurred. If the subsequent analysis returns a second “Invalid” result, the
sample will be reported as “Invalid.”

The number 40 is listed on page 16 and is the number of cycles for "Amplification". I have no idea what this means, but it does not seem to be related to the Ct value.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar @Phite ;but I will correct one obvious error in the OP: 90% false positive rate does not "mean no pandemic".

What is not obvious until you check is that nobody ever stated such a thing in the first place. @Phite totally lied; perhaps thinking that nobody would check. He is an anti-social extremist and has consistently resorted to tactics of outright lies and misinterpretation to put across his distorted radical views.

Phite

Barnardot said:

@Phite ;So now the FDA was spouting meaningless rhetoric?

I hear nothing...

You'll get no argument from me or anyone else regarding that statement.

I cannot rule out that Donald Trump took off his clothes and ran down the street with a massive hard on........ I just said absolutely nothing.

Well that about sums up your critical thinking skills, eh?  When the the FDA says that the PCR-test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens, you hear the opposite.  I can't help you with that kind of thing.

Phite

@MayCaesar

Page 34.  It will not copy and paste.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

They are in conflict with fauci and others.  And that would give an inflated number of covid infections.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Got it!

2019-nCoV Markers (N1 and N2)
• When all controls exhibit the expected performance, a specimen is considered negative if all
2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves DO NOT cross the threshold line
within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct) AND the RNase P growth curve DOES cross the threshold line
within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct).

• When all controls exhibit the expected performance, a specimen is considered positive for 2019-
nCoV if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line
within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct). The RNase P may or may not be positive as described above, but
the 2019-nCoV result is still valid.

• When all controls exhibit the expected performance and the growth curves for the 2019-nCoV
markers (N1, N2) AND the RNase P marker DO NOT cross the cycle threshold growth curve within
40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct), the result is invalid. The extracted RNA from the specimen should be re-
tested. If residual RNA is not available, re-extract RNA from residual specimen and re-test. If the
re-tested sample is negative for all markers and RNase P, the result is invalid and collection of a
new specimen from the patient should be considered.

• When all controls exhibit the expected performance and the cycle threshold growth curve for any
one marker (N1 or N2, but not both markers) crosses the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (<
40.00 Ct) the result is inconclusive. The extracted RNA should be retested. If residual RNA is not
available, re-extract RNA from residual specimen and re-test. If the same result is obtained,

MayCaesar

@Phite

But that is a different test. You can clearly see that these two tests have different recommended thresholds: the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has it at Ct=40.0, while the DTPM COVID-19 RT-PCR Test has it at Ct=35.0. Comparing the cycle thresholds of different tests is meaningless.

You have been referring to a "PCR test" in your comments without specifying the test. There are multiple different tests, apparently, and if Fauci was talking about a different test than the one you are looking at, then there is no discrepancy between his claims and the FDA's instructions.

Barnardot

@Phite @MayCaesar When the the FDA says that the PCR-test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens, you hear the opposite.

No. I "hear" exactly what it says. No more, no less. And the entire phrase says nothing, absolutely nothing. Let's try again, shall we? Apart from the fact that the FDA said no such thing at any time....you made it up.

"I cannot rule out that the sky will fall down today. I cannot rule out that green pigs with purple wings will fly past my window today. The PCR-test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens". All three statements say completely nothing, zilch, zippo....except in the minds of psychopathic, deluded, conspiratorial, deceiving, extremist nit*wits who will misinterpret them to match what's going around in their distorted minds.

Let's try a very simple fun test now, shall we? What does the following "say" to you:

Mary had a little lamb.

Now, most normal, sane people would interpret that as being the first line of a popular nursery rhyme.

I suspect that a psychopathic, deluded, conspiratorial, deceiving, extremist nit*wit with a distorted mind will interpret it as: The mother of Jesus Christ was a pedophile who committed bestiality.

And the psychopathic, deluded, conspiratorial, deceiving, extremist nit*wit is going to go around trying to convince everyone that Christ's mother was bestial pedophile and that its true because everybody said it.

Now listen up really careful because that psychopathic, deluded, conspiratorial, deceiving, extremist nit*wit is you (and let's elaborate on "you" in case of misinterpretation.....thou, @Phite, second person pronoun). The reason I say that is that you have been consistently misquoting, misinterpreting lying and straw manning throughout this thread and the thread about polio. Also, very telling is that you have failed to answer one single question asked by anyone. You have an extreme mindset, and you are mentally ill. 

Now, what do you hear from the last paragraph?

Phite

@Barnardot

Apart from the fact that the FDA said no such thing at any time....you made it up.

• 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.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products
for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Do you think I made that up?  It's from the FDA.  I've shown it to you before, and you're still pretending it means nothing.

Barnardot

@Phite ;Do you think I made that up?  It's from the FDA.  I've shown it to you before, and you're still pretending it means nothing.

It's not what I think. The fact is; you made it up... the FDA said no such thing and you did not show me before. I checked. Which is irrelevant anyway since it says absolutely nothing. You are 100% deluded, misinterpret, listen to only what you want to interpret and mentally ill and answer to absolutely nobody....only the voices in your head. Everybody else on this thread has told you euphemistically exactly what I have told you.

If you are not doing so already, you seriously need to seek professional mental health treatment. You are so far off the planet its not even funny.

Phite

@Barnardot

1) COVID-19 RT-PCR test Controls – Positive, Negative, and Internal:
In the table below, N1 and N2 are considered positive (+) when the Ct < 38 and
RP is considered positive (+) when the Ct < 40.

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 37

• Test performance can be affected because the epidemiology and clinical spectrum of infection
caused by 2019-nCoV is not fully known. For example, clinicians and laboratories may not know
the optimum types of specimens to collect, and, during the course of infection, when these
specimens are most likely to contain levels of viral RNA that can be readily detected.
• 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.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products
for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

Note the website.

Phite

@MayCaesar

But that is a different test.

Are you trying to make the point that no labs were using a PCR-test cycle threshold of 40 to test for covid?

What about this:

SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus PCR Ct Cutoff Values

October 5, 2020

The Kansas Health and Environmental Laboratories (KHEL) use real-time PCR (RT-
PCR) to look for the genetic material (nucleic acid) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in patient
samples. Our most commonly performed RT-PCR assay (aka test) has a Ct cutoff of 42
and is the most sensitive assay currently available. All assays are rigorously and
critically evaluated for accuracy prior to use on patient specimens.

https://www.communitycareks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SARS-CoV-2_COVID-19-virus-PCR-Ct-Cutoff-Values100520.pdf

Barnardot

@Phite ;Note the website.

Please note your insanity. Both @MayCaesar and I are telling you the same thing. If I were you I would stop all this deceptive jumping from one thing to another and referring to something different to mitigate the lies you just told.

You are a compulsive, lying, deceptive, extreme, deluded nutcase and will not take heed of what you are politely being told. For chrissake, cut this roundabout circular total crap and get yourself some therapy. You are now totally out of control. I've seen some real doozies come and go on this site, but so far, you are going for first prize.

Phite

@Barnardot

 Both @MayCaesar and I are telling you the same thing.

Yeah, and you're both wrong.

Here's a package insert from the MDx RT-PCR test.

1. The CareStart™ COVID-19 MDx RT-PCR is for use with respiratory specimens.
2. The CareStart™ COVID-19 MDx RT-PCR testing kit performance was established
using nasopharyngeal swab specimens only. While other specimen types listed in the
intended use are acceptable specimens (i.e., oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal
wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate, mid-turbinate swabs, and BALs) for testing,
performance with the CareStart™ COVID-19 MDx RT-PCR testing kit has not been
established for these specimens.
3. This test may not be able to differentiate newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 subtypes.
4. The detection of viral RNA of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent upon proper specimen
collection, handling, transportation, storage, and preparation, including extraction.
Failure to observe proper procedures in any one of these steps can lead to incorrect
results.
5. Negative results do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the
sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions.
6. Results from the device should be correlated with the clinical history, epidemiological
data and other data available to the clinician evaluating the patient.
7. This device has been evaluated for use with human specimen material only.
8. False negative results may occur if the number of copies of target RNA in the clinical
specimen is below the detection limits of the device.
9. False negative results may occur if mutations are present in the regions targeted by
the test.
10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load
present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of
SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or
blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

https://www.fda.gov/media/139832/download
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh hey!  Did you take note the website there.  Looks like the FDA . . .

I forgot to post this part of the test insert:

MCGM-10072
CareStartTM COVID-19 MDx RT-PCR

• A positive signal is defined as a Ct value of less than or equal to 43 cycles (Ct ≤ 43
cycles).
• A negative signal is defined as a Ct value of greater than 43 cycles (Ct > 43 cycles).

__________________________________________________________________________________________

So, why in the heck did fauci say that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 is pointless?

You're really stuck on this, ain't ya?!  They both can't be right, so you have to decide who got it wrong.  But that would upset your belief system.

Phite

@Barnardot

At least you can be consoled by the fact that there is a new sucker on this site called @Phite

Ah, stalking me in threads I don't participate in.  You must be really mad!

The definition of a sucker is someone who takes a test that ". . . cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens," and "does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen."  

Also, you refuse to see that the FDA and fauci are diametrically opposed to each other because of their disagreement concerning the appropriate cycle-threshold is for the PCR-test.  When you refuse to look at things that cause you confusion, they don't just go away?

MayCaesar

Phite said:

@MayCaesar

But that is a different test.

Are you trying to make the point that no labs were using a PCR-test cycle threshold of 40 to test for covid?

What about this:

SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus PCR Ct Cutoff Values

October 5, 2020

The Kansas Health and Environmental Laboratories (KHEL) use real-time PCR (RT-
PCR) to look for the genetic material (nucleic acid) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in patient
samples. Our most commonly performed RT-PCR assay (aka test) has a Ct cutoff of 42
and is the most sensitive assay currently available. All assays are rigorously and
critically evaluated for accuracy prior to use on patient specimens.

https://www.communitycareks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SARS-CoV-2_COVID-19-virus-PCR-Ct-Cutoff-Values100520.pdf

No, my point is exactly what I said: that these are two different tests. One test uses the threshold of Ct=40, another Ct=35. Numbers of cycles are going to be different for different tests because they measure different quantities. As an analogy, you could have two devices measuring the distance in miles, but one measures it in statute miles, while another in nautical miles. If you wanted to set a threshold for something like "far enough", then the threshold value of the first device would be higher than that of another device.

You just linked the third test, distinct from the two linked before, that has the CT cutoff of 42. That would be Roman miles in my analogy, resulting in the highest threshold of the three.

Your mistake appears in assuming that there is the PCR test. In reality, there are multiple different PCR tests, measuring different things and having different sensitivities, hence warranting different thresholds.

Barnardot

@Phite ; Yeah, @MayCaesar and you're both wrong.

No, as usual, you are 100% wrong.

This test "may not be able to" differentiate......
Q: P-l-e-a-s-e    r-e-a-d    t-h-e   b-o-l-d    t-e-x-t   a-b-o-v-e......  w-h-a-t-    d-o-e-s   i-t    s-a-y?
A: N-O-T-H-I-N-G     Z-I-L-C-H    Z-I-P-P-O   IT IS SPECULATIVE LANGUAGE DESIGNED TO SUCK IN D*CKWITS LIKE YOU TO INTERPRET IT AS SOMTHING.

You are also conflating different tests that both @MayCaesar and I have told you....we and the rest of decent sane, civilized society are 100% right. You are 100% wrong and you are an extremist, deluded, mentally-ill d*ckwit. As well as being ignorant and arrogant to the extent that you persistently refuse to comprehend what good-meaning, sane people are telling you.

Phite

@MayCaesar

One test uses the threshold of Ct=40, another Ct=35. Numbers of cycles are going to be different for different tests because they measure different quantities.

Please post your source for that.

If what you say is true, what are these people complaining about?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“…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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What in hell are they worried about?  What do you know that they don't?

Phite

@Barnardot

This test "may not be able to" differentiate......

Yup.  Nothing could be clearer.  

Maybe.  But . . . maybe not.  You're easy to please.

MayCaesar

@Phite

The sources was posted above, two by you and one by me. Two were directly from the FDA website, the last was from Community Care Network of Kansas. They list the Ct thresholds recommended for individual tests, and all three differ from each other.

Regarding the quotes you posted, they are just pointing the obvious fact: that the True Positive and True Negative rates of the test are not 100%. The second one specifically points out one source of False Positives: detection of non-infectious nucleic acid.

I am not sure why you are assuming that these people are complaining about something. These seem to just be reasonable words of caution: any test has limitations, and it is nice to know them before interpreting its results.

Barnardot

@Phite @MayCaesar This test "may not be able to" differentiate......Yup.  Nothing could be clearer.  

Like...h - e - l - l - o - o - o - o...........h - e - l - l - o - o - o - o......is there anyone up there?....The light is on, but there seems to be no signs of life in the foster home for extremists.

Let's try another simple test, shall we?....This time, it's called "spot the difference".....errrrrr hummmmm: 

Can you spot the difference between the two following phrases?

This test "may not be able to" differentiate.

This test "does not" differentiate.

Here's a clue.....one phrase says absolutely nothing at all and the other actually states something. "Now, preschoolers,.......which is which? And who among you is a total sucked-in dic*kwit intent on taking along others with you for the ride?"

Barnardot

@MayCaesar @Phite ;I am not sure why you are assuming that these people are complaining about something.

The reason he is making such off-the-planet assumptions is that there are definitely a few parts missing from the engine room.

He is so screwed up on extremism and conspiracies that he will automatically turn a microscopic pimple into a giant, erupting volcano that "may" (notice my choice of word here ) wipe out all life.

Phite

@MayCaesar

. . . measuring different things and having different sensitivities, hence warranting different thresholds.

I recall asking you to provide a source for your claim that a cycle-threshold of 40 is appropriate for some tests and not others.  If you believe you already have, then copy&paste the relevant passage from the text.  Thanks in advance.

These seem to just be reasonable words of caution: any test has limitations.

Right. Let's hear what the inventor of the PCR-test has to say:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“…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)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Studies on the 40 cycle threshold:

• A paper published on September 28 by the Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of
America noted that, based on the scientific consensus of more than 100 studies, the cycle threshold should be no
more than 30 cycles. Going further, the researchers tested 3,790 positive tests in which they knew the cycle
values. They found they could culture (i.e., they found viable virus in) 70 percent of positive samples at a cycle
threshold of 25. That percentage dropped to 20 percent of positive samples at the research consensus of 30 cycles.
Above 35 cycles, only 3 percent of positive samples could be cultured. Said a different way above 35 cycles
97% of the positive test would be false positives.

• The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a
threshold of 33 cycles. 

Here's that paper: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/11/e921/5912603

In your own words, what do you believe the test is going to tell you?

Phite

@Barnardot

This test "may not be able to" differentiate.

Why would you bring that up?  You're just advertising in plain terms that you took a test that, at best, may, or may not, tell you what you need to know?

And according to the inventor of the PCR-test, it won't tell you what you need to know.

Did that register?

MayCaesar

@Phite

What you linked is not a paper, but a piece of correspondence between the editor and the group of researchers. The group used the particular version of the test described in this brief report: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10096-020-03913-9 None of  the variations of the test we have been discussing so far existed in April 2020, when the report was published, so the Ct values mentioned in it have no implications on those tests.

Here is the documentation for the tests you are asking for:

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download 

https://www.fda.gov/media/139832/download 

https://www.communitycareks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SARS-CoV-2_COVID-19-virus-PCR-Ct-Cutoff-Values100520.pdf 

As you can see, different tests are attributed different recommended Ct thresholds.

To your last question, PCR tests are based on a chemical chain reaction that effectively multiplies a particular strain of the DNA, creating a large number of its copies. The number of cycles, or Ct, is the number of times this process is induced. The larger the Ct value required is, the less likely it is that the targeted DNA was present in the original sample in significant quantities, and the more likely it is that the detection is a product of a reaction with a different DNA strain.

Since the particular way the chemical substance is injected in the sample depends on the test, so does the reasonable Ct threshold. It makes no sense to talk about "the recommended Ct threshold of the PCR test" without specifying the variation of the test.

As an analogy, I could ask, "How many horse powers are required to get a truck to start moving on a road?" The question makes no sense. What truck? What road? How is the force applied? Once I specify that I am talking about the standard highway road in the US, the F-150 2023 [insert specific model], and the force is generated by its standard gasoline engine - I can perform the experiment and find the answer. Say, I find that the answer is 25 horse powers.

Then you come along and say, "False! Toyota recently stated the value of 22 horse powers. Your answer is wrong!" Sorry, but Toyota stated it for one of its trucks, not for this Ford truck. There is no contradiction here.

Barnardot

@Phite @MayCaesar ;Why would you bring that up?  You're just advertising in plain terms that you took a test that, at best, may, or may not, tell you what you need to know? And according to the inventor of the PCR-test, it won't tell you what you need to know. Did that register?

You are deliberately gaslighting which again, is another tactic used by dishonest extremist conspiracy loopheads. You know exactly what the example was illustrating but like questions that we ask, you refuse to address. Not a very scrupulous individual, are you? So, given that you choose to behave like a three-year-old here is today's lesson for the dummies:

"Now preschoolers, here is your first math lesson.........what does one plus one equal.......Well Phite, no, the answer is not eleven, but I do understand your (totally screwed up) reasoning. You wet your bed again last night, didn't you?"

Phite

@MayCaesar

As you can see, different tests are attributed different recommended Ct thresholds.

Sorry, but you're going to have to highlight or copy&paste the relevant segments that prove your claim that a cycle-threshold of 40 was not used on patient samples by labs around the world and deemed positive on that basis. 

The PCR-test doesn't determine whether the virus is alive or dead; you have to culture the sample to find that out.  Do you honestly think that every nasal swab that tested positive was cultured in a lab?  Couldn't have been, because every positive result from a PCR-test with a cycle-threshld of anything over 35 would have produced meaningless results and would not have counted as a cases.  But they counted them as cases anyway, didn't they? 

To your last question, PCR tests are . . .

Yeah, we all know how to use google.

As an analogy, I could ask . . .

Your analogy involves variables that do not translate to a discussion of the PCR-test cycle threshold issue.  It's a test that allows for something small to be visible.  Your analogy fails on every level.

Just curious, but when this whole thing started, what is it you believed they used as a reference point when they calibrated the PCR-test to identify the "novel" coronavirus?  The answer just might surprise you!

The number 40 is listed on page 16 and is the number of cycles for "Amplification". I have no idea what this means, but it does not seem to be related to the Ct value.

Ah, the source of much of your confusion.  Amplification is not only related to Ct value, it is the Ct value.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The number of amplification cycles required to create enough copies of the viral RNA to be detected is called the cycle threshold or Ct value.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/guidance-documents/polymerase-chain-reaction-cycle-threshold-values-testing.html

Barnardot

@Phite ;Sorry, but you're going to have to highlight or copy&paste the relevant segments that prove your claim that a cycle-thresh….

Sorry but he has… I checked. It doesn’t matter anyway because last time you ignored it and it had no bearing on what he and I already pulled you up on.

You are an extreme dic*kwit who has no intent whatsoever to engage in intelligent argument.

Phite

@Barnardot

Well, since you got here first, why don't you answer the question of what it is they used as a reference point when they calibrated the PCR-test to identify the "novel" coronavirus?  I'm sure the answer will surprise you, too

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, let's see what you really know about the subject. 

What it is they used as a reference point to calibrate the PCR-test to identify the "novel" coronavirus?