Is Covid-19 PCR testing effective?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Yes PCR testing is effective, accurate, cost effective, reduces hospitalizations and saves lives.

Note I am putting the dates on this because PCR testing was a moving target early in the pandemic. This is PCR because technology developed rapidly during the height of the pandemic.

"Rapid home COVID-19 tests are accurate about 80% of the time in people who are infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. This is compared to PCR tests, which are accurate about 95% of the time." 2023

https://www.verywellhealth.com/are-at-home-covid-tests-accurate-enough-5210762

95% accuracy is much better than coin flip that most people could come up with.

Early testing means more self-quarantining flattening the curve and able to receive life saving treatment including anti-viral earlier.

"Pfizer a day later announced Paxlovid, which it says is 89% effective in preventing hospitalizations and death, and now seeks FDA approval."

"Merck’s drug, meanwhile, was shown to have a 50% reduction in hospitalization – from 14% to 7%, with deaths decreased from 8 to zero. This is a similar outcome, but it’s hard to do a direct comparison because of different populations and methods. But it’s safe to say that both drugs are highly effective." November 10, 2021

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/two-new-antivirals-targeting-covid-19/

"A positive test early in the course of the illness enables individuals to isolate themselves – reducing the chances that they will infect others and allowing them to seek treatment earlier, likely reducing disease severity and the risk of long-term disability, or death." 04, 2020

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/why-covid-19-testing-key-getting-back-normal

The part about flattening the curve and reducing cases is especially prevalanet in the United States because of the lack of doctors in the USA. United States doctors make more but there are less doctors compared to other 1st world countries. This is part of the reason the death toll was so high in the US.

As for cost effectiveness hospitalization is expensive, $50 for a test, $10 for at home test are dirt cheap compared to $47k for mechanical ventilation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8491188/

An average of 20k.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-pharma/

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Flattening the curve is important overflowing hospitals leads to significally higher deaths.

"Research shows death rates rise significantly when hospitals are full."  2022

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/07/1071409632/deaths-tend-to-increase-as-hospitals-fill-and-hospitals-are-overflowing-due-to-c

As hospitals run out of beds, intensive care units, and more death rates increase. Even a small decrease in cases can really help. Some places have less hospitals than others for various reasons and in this case PCR testing is even more crucial in flattening the curve to save lives.

Phite

@Dreamer

How did they calibrate the test for covid when they were not in possession of the virus to use as a reference?

The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. (emphasis added, page 40)

Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:

On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.

But they didn't.

So, why did the CDC claim that they were in possession of the virus, only to later admit that they didn't really have it and had to use a virus from 2003 as a reference for the NOVEL coronavirus?

And of course you already know that a cycle-threshold of 40, which is what the FDA recommended labs around the world use, is way too high to be accurate anyway.  Why did the FDA go against fauci's expertise when he declared that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 is pointless?

And this from the test package insert: 13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

Could you paraphrase that so that I know you understand what it means.

But first, explain how the PCR-test identified a particular NOVEL virus when they used a reference virus from 2003 instead.

Thanks in advance.

Dreamer

@Phite

Fauci was talking about contagiousness not if a person is infected.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-hoax-idUSL1N2PA0JO/

This is a confusion tactic used by deniers and oversimplification.

As for a virus from 2003 being used to create the test in 2019, well 2019 was a very long time ago in relation to rapidly developing technology. Surely, they managed to find a better sample in 2020.

Also, your statements are contradictory as in test package 13. The test can detect other pathogens including the 2003 corona virus.

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

As for a virus from 2003 being used to create the test in 2019, well 2019 was a very long time ago in relation to rapidly developing technology. Surely, they managed to find a better sample in 2020.

Also, your statements are contradictory as in test package 13. The test can detect other pathogens including the 2003 corona virus.

@Dreamer

You need to answer the question of how on earth anyone calibrated the PCR-test for covid when they used a virus from 2003 as a reference?  You also need to explain why the CDC lied about being in possession of the virus.  Perhaps they lied to you because that was the only way to get you to believe that the test would tell you what you need to know.

A Freedom of Information Act request forced over two hundred medical facilities and organizations in the U.S. and Canada to admit that they are not in possession of information or data concerning the isolation of the covid virus.  You are ignoring this information because it's not what you want to believe.  And you don't want to believe it because it would cast doubt on the rest of the narrative.  And you are definitely not open to that yet.

If you care to continue this discussion, I'll post each Freedom of Information Act request to the various health organizations alleged to be in possession of data or information related to isolation of the virus. Then I'll post their responses. And all you have to do is understand what "not in possession of" means.

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

“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

You are having a very hard time understanding what that says.

So, tell me how a test that wasn't calibrated for covid nevertheless detected it.

ZeusAres42

The question "Are they effective?"= a closed yes or no answer; medicine is not binary. The question should be "How effective are they?" And the answer would be something like "That depends ..............."

Phite

Oh, then the answer is: Not very!  For an explanation, see all of the reasons I've already given.

Dreamer

You are still begging the question. For example you phrased this in question form.

"Why did the FDA go against fauci's expertise when he declared that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 is pointless?" Phite

I proved you incorrect. Showing that Fauci was talking about contagiousness and the PCR test is useful for detecting infections. Just as you are now begging the question about why the CDC allegedly lied.

I'm an impasse now. Search engines aren't working for me to find a debunk of your exact claim that is novel to me. The pro-vaccine community I am in doesn't seem interested other than very general help. Unfortunately I know enough about vaccines that this general help acts as redundant platitudes.

I guess I could learn a lot more about virology and hope I stumble upon the exact facts and logical fallacy to debunk your arguments. That could take a long time. I could also ask another pro-vaccine community.

Anyways this is why a lot of times skeptics can't debunk denier arguments. There is too many, too off base, and novel keep mutating into existence. There simply is not enough time.

ZuesAres42

I recommend Fads, Fakes, and Frauds: Exploding Myths book. The author explains how putting all sort of extra words and qualifiers is just annoying.

Phite

@Dreamer

Tony: “…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

He wasn't talking about contagiousness there.  He's talking about a PCR-test cycle-threshold of anything over 35 being too high to culture a virus.  Do you really need to wonder what he would say about a cycle-threshold of 40?

Now, explain why over 200 medical facilities and organizations in the U.S. and Canada had to admit--after a freedom of information act request--that they are NOT in possession of information or data concerning the isolation of the covid virus.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FROM THE CDC: On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.

However, an official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

So, how is it that the CDC could not comply with the FOIA request if they were in possession of the virus?

Also, in October of 2020, a Dr Thushan de Silva, from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease is quoted as saying:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

“There are now hundreds of stocks of cultured SARS-CoV-2 in laboratories around the world.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

So far, that has turned out to be a lie. There is a list of well over a hundred medical institutions, organizations, offices, and individuals who've admitted to not being in possession of the virus, but only after they were forced to respond to a submitted FOIA request. The list continues to grow.

And this from the CDC in November of 2020 through FOIA request.:

"A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request."

• 52 Canadian institutions have provided their responses:

Public Health Agency of Canada (and another from Public Health Agency of Canada, this one re the alleged “UK variant” aka “B.1.1.7” aka “Alpha”; and another from Public Health Agency of Canada re any alleged virus/variant, and another from Public Health Agency of Canada re ANY type of alleged virus at all), Health Canada (and another from Health Canada; and another from Health Canada), the National Research Council of Canada, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization-International Vaccine Centre (VIDO-InterVac), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Public Health Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Health (and another from Ontario Ministry of Health re “delta variant”, University Health Network, Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General and Ontario Provincial Police, Alberta Ministry of Health, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, his Office and Executive Council, Calgary Police Service, Institut National de Sante Publique du Quebec (another from Public Health Quebec), British Columbia’s Ministry of Health (re “the UK variant”) (another from British Columbia’s Ministry of Health), British Columbia’s Centre for Disease Control, British Columbia’s Provincial Health Services Authority (2 responses, 1 re “SARS-COV-2”, 1 re the alleged “B.1.1.7” aka “Alpha variant” aka “UK variant”), Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (re “B.1.1.7” aka “Alpha variant” aka “UK variant”), Newfoundland Labrador Department of Health & Community Services, New Brunswick’s Department/Ministry of Health, McGill University, University of Ottawa, University of Waterloo, Dalhousie University, University of Guelph, University of British Columbia, the City of Toronto, Toronto Police (and another from Toronto Police), Halton Region, Hamilton Police Service (Ontario), Halton Regional Police Service (Ontario), the Region of Peel (Ontario), Region of Durham (Ontario); KFL&A Public Health (Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Ontario, re “any variant”), Grey Bruce Health Services, Grey Bruce Health Unit, Simcoe Muskoka Health Unit, Niagara Regional Police Service, Peterborough Public Health (Ontario) (and another from Peterborough Public Health), Peterborough Police Service (Ontario) (another from Peterborough Police), City of Peterborough (Ontario) Aylmer Police Service (Ontario) (and another from Aylmer Police), Woodstock Police Service (Ontario), Sudbury Police Service (Ontario), Hastings Prince Edward Public Health (Ontario), the Town of Collingwood, the University of Toronto (another from U of Toronto), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, McMaster University and Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto) (note that researchers from the last 4 institutions had publicly claimed to have “isolated the virus”, as had VIDO-Intervac).

Every institution has failed to provide or cite even 1 record describing the isolation aka purification of the alleged “COVID-19 virus” directly from a patient sample that was not first adulterated with other sources of genetic material. (Those other sources are typically monkey kidney aka “Vero” cells and fetal bovine serum).

Dreamer

@Phite

"SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated many times."

https://fullfact.org/health/CDC-document-viral-isolates/

The virus has been isolated many times. The source of this myth comes from a website that is the least reliable website I've ever seen. Tin foil hat quackery very low factual reporting and quackery pseudo science level.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-expose/

Phite

The list shown below was current as of October 5, 2021; it’s much longer now.

(Yes, we are aware of the many publications wherein authors claim to have “isolated the virus”. We’ve looked at numerous such studies and have yet to see one where they actually did so. Claiming to have done something and actually doing it are sometimes 2 different things, even in peer-reviewed science.

This is the guy from one of your links:

In October of 2020, a Dr Thushan de Silva, from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease is quoted as saying:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

“There are now hundreds of stocks of cultured SARS-CoV-2 in laboratories around the world.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

And yet, no one can come up with it . . .

Dreamer

Sars virus has been isolated.

"There are multiple examples of scientists isolating SARS-CoV-2 (here, here, here, here), the virus that causes COVID-19 disease, where they also sequenced the complete genome (here, here, here). Pictures of isolated SARS-CoV-2 particles have been released by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (here)."

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-rna-idUSL1N2LS27P/

How much proof do you want? Many of those links are peer reviewed.

Phite

@Dreamer

Your Reuters link includes this: Pictures of isolated SARS-CoV-2 particles have been released by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

That's odd, especially when you consider that the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is number-105 on the list of medical organizations that have said they have no data on isolation or any studies that describe it when forced to reply via a FOIA request.

Why would they do that?  

It seems that you take everyone at their word as long as they support your beliefs.  But now that you know that the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, along with hundreds of other medical institutions, could not produce anything to fulfill the request even when sued for the information, will you continue pretending that they have?

Dreamer

@Phite

I am not sure if your claims are true. I am unsure what a freedom of information act lawsuit is, FOIA. 

"Overall, we rate GlobalResearch a Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy and Strong Pseudoscience website based on promoting unproven information, such as the dangers of Vaccines and 9-11, as a false flag operation."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/ ;

Yet, this is the type of website that agrees with you. Who are you going to believe tin foil hat conspiracy websites or peer reviewed articles? I am unsure whether Christine Massey filed the FOI requests or just claims she did. I am not finding any reliable websites related to the conspiracy theory.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=christine+massey+foi&t=newext&atb=v335-1&ia=web

See for yourself, like 20 low quality or conspiracy theory websites pop up.

Most conspiracy theories are mathematically impossible.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a19150/most-conspiracy-theories-are-mathematically-impossible/

In her own words Massey doesn't believe in HPV virus and dozens of others "alleged viruses". There may be another reason why those institutions didn't respond assuming Massey did file a FOI request.

Massey sounds like a religious extremist by being against life saving cancer preventing HPV vaccines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557344/

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

I am not sure if your claims are true. I am unsure what a freedom of information act lawsuit is, FOIA. 

I am unsure whether Christine Massey filed the FOI requests or just claims she did.

This is funny.  You admit to not knowing what a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit is, but you're nevertheless compelled to explain it away by simply calling Christine Massey a dishonest person who fabricates email exchanges between herself and over 200 medical organizations and institutions.   I could put FOIA request email exchanges between her and the CDC right in front of your eyes, but all indications are that you'll believe it is fabricated with absolutely nothing to support that belief. 

I know now badly you want to believe that the CDC did not lie to you when they said they were in possession of the virus, but the fact is that they failed to produce anything when legally compelled to do so, just like a couple hundred other medical institutions around the world . . .

Like this one:

Dreamer

@Phite

I can't explain the FOIA request. Deniers have used altered images so I am correct to be suspicious.

"but the 1977 image is a doctored version of an 9 April 2007 issue which actually featured an article titled “The Global Warming Survival Guide”:"

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-coming-ice-age/

Let me ask you some questions while I hope I stumble upon the correct information to debunk your claim.

What do you think of the measles vaccine?

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

I can't explain the FOIA request.

Yeah, I know.  That's why you're trying to change the subject to global warming and measles vaccines.

Deniers have used altered images so I am correct to be suspicious.

So, when it comes to "debunking" everything I've put in front of your eyes, the only thing you have is your unfounded suspicion that it's all been altered--that Christine Massey is a dishonest person who fabricates email exchanges between herself and over 200 medical organizations and institutions. 

 Let me ask you some questions while I hope I stumble . . .

You're already stumbling.

Again, I know now badly you want to believe that the CDC did not lie to you when they said they were in possession of the virus, but the fact is that they failed to produce anything when legally compelled to do so, just like a couple hundred other medical institutions around the world.

If you can't debunk what I've posted below, you need to learn to accept that.

Dreamer

@Phite

No, I don't need to accept that if I can't debunk. That's a on the spot fallacy. How about germ theory do you believe in that?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/On_the_spot_fallacy

Phite

@Dreamer

No, you misunderstand.  I'm telling you that you have to accept the fact that you are unable to debunk what I've posted . . . which happens to be  true.

Do you believe that the email exchange between Massey and the CDC I've shown you doesn't exist, or that it's been altered . . . that they've all been altered?

Dreamer

I believe I don't have enough information to make a determination. As for the image you provide if you mouse over it is from a quack website called fluoridefreepeel.ca an anti-fluoride fear mongering website.

"the only nefarious result we have obtained is the significant reduction of dental decay with its concomitant savings of billions of health care dollars and untold pain and suffering for our patients." 2014

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fluoride-still-not-poisoning-your-precious-fluids/

What do you think of using fluoride toothpaste?

Phite

Dreamer said:

I believe I don't have enough information to make a determination.

I share that belief!

However, I do not share your belief that this:

. . . is a fabricated document.  You really don't believe anything unless it supports your BELIEFS even when it's brought right before your eyes.

Dreamer

@Phite

Enough, this conversation has been going on since mid April 2023, lets wrap it up. You seem to be under the impression that I have the time or ability to debunk all your claims. Nobody has the time nor ability to be an expert in everything.

I had a flat Earth truther once claim victory because they thought gyroscopes proved the Earth was flat. Just because I lacked in depth knowledge of gyroscopes doesn't mean the Earth is flat nor I am in disbelief and as you put it " You really don't believe anything unless it supports your BELIEFS even when it's brought right before your eyes.".

https://www.livescience.com/60544-ways-to-prove-earth-is-round.html

https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/

I found my argument much more convincing that the interlocutor's argument. The same with yours. I explained how the Internet works that hype, sensationalism, novel, and false news spread faster that facts.

I've used credible sources like reuters, snopes, fullfact, and peer reviewed articles to show the sars-cov2 has been isolated. Meanwhile, you use tin foil hat quackery websites that fear monger against fluoride.

"Fast and efficient purification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA dependent RNA polymerase complex expressed in Escherichia coli"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33914787/

The above sounds like purification to me, but again I don't know all the technical jargon. Make the new few rounds count I am losing interest in debating this subject with you. Until I gain more knowledge on the subject I can advance no further.

Yet, I've won, you've lost you are intransigent and just don't understand you lost. Confirmation bias.

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

You seem to be under the impression that I have the time or ability to debunk all your claims.

No.  I'm only asking you to debunk ONE thing.  You obviously believe that the email exchange between Massey and and the CDC has been altered or doesn't exist.  And that's what you're being asked to prove; just that one thing, and you have nothing to offer.  You keep coming up deficient, and then you pretend that it makes you a winner.  That's not logical or reasonable, but that's where you stand.

If you or anyone else can debunk this, don't be shy.  But if you can't, then . . . you can't!

Phite

@Dreamer

If you have nothing to show that the document is not from the WHO, then I'm afraid you're going to have to deal with it in your own way.  However, denial is not a legitimate response.  Never has been.

Dreamer

When did you first come to this conclusion?

Phite

I believe that when all of those medical institutions (hundreds of them), including the WHO and the CDC, answered a FOIA request for any evidence or information having to do with the virus, and all of them came up empty handed, I sanely concluded that they were never in possession of it.

That's the only sane conclusion, isn't it?

Dreamer

@Phite

When do you first hear about the medical institutions coming up empty handed? I wouldn't know maybe a simple miscommunication.

Phite

The fact is, I didn't hear about it; I've read about it.  And so did you when I posted it all for you to see, and right from the horses' mouths, too.  But you believe it's all fake, forged, a hoax, or otherwise untrue. However, you come up empty handed when asked to back up that belief of yours.

State your reason for not believing what the CDC, FDA, and a couple hundred other medical institutions have said when compelled by law to turn over everything related to the virus.  

You're interesting, but for all the wrong reasons.  Had all of those medical organizations and institutions satisfactorily complied with the order and DID come up with the requested data on the virus, you'd be asking me why I can't accept reality.  However, they've all officially reported having no data on the virus,  So, why are you not accepting the reality of that?