As Delta Approaches...

[mikewhitney]

As the so-called Delta variant ( of the computer generated genome ascribed to SARS-COV-2) approaches as a major threat to our communities ... and leads to more lockdowns ...

Does anyone know of any PCR tests and labs that have been modified to specifically identify the Delta variant?

One guy went on record for saying that the labs that he called told him that they only check for the general virus. They do not check for any specific variants.

A somewhat related question ... do we have specific studies or specific institutes who have gone on record (with data and identification of equipment being used) for showing how much penetration the Delta variant has done?

If none of this is available, we could just be seeing the cyclic sharing of news while lacking any substance. The media just reports what others report. The origin may just be from a press release.

[Sparko]

These are good questions.

[Sparko]

So while the standard COVID PCR test can't tell what variant you have, apparently the labs can do further genomic sequencing to see what the variant is. They apparently do random tests of samples (e.g. testing every 1 out of every 100 samples) and so when they say 80% of new cases are Delta, they mean that 80% of the genomic testing they do shows the Delta variant.

here is one such lab: https://ayassbioscience.com/delta-variant/

[Stoic]

So while the standard COVID PCR test can't tell what variant you have, apparently the labs can do further genomic sequencing to see what the variant is. They apparently do random tests of samples (e.g. testing every 1 out of every 100 samples) and so when they say 80% of new cases are Delta, they mean that 80% of the genomic testing they do shows the Delta variant.

here is one such lab: https://ayassbioscience.com/delta-variant/

As long as the samples that they do genomic sequencing on are chosen randomly, the percentage should be pretty accurate.

[mikewhitney]

So far I just see very little sampling

Source: https://ayassbioscience.com/delta-variant/

Recently, the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, a viral lineage also known as B.1.617.2 that was first identified in India, has been considered the “greatest threat” in the world’s effort to contain COVID-19. To assess the incidence of the Delta variant from a local laboratory and investigate any vaccine breakthrough cases against the Delta variant, our lab performed the viral whole-genome sequence analysis on 35 samples randomly select from nasal swab positive cases that were tested from June 1^st to July 30^th, 2021. Number of cases surveyed is 27.

© Copyright Original Source

Also, I would want to know if they check for other variants (and the original) so that we know whether there is overlap and can verify that these are statistically differentiated. Do we know whether the results are officially published with all the raw data?

One problem with the PCR tests is that the selectivity may be insufficient. We do not know how many similar RNA samples would be rejected when they are not SARS-COV-2.

[Stoic]

So far I just see very little sampling

If you don't look, you won't see it.

According to the CDC, more than 175,000 samples have been sequenced in the US since December 20, 2020.

Also, I would want to know if they check for other variants (and the original) so that we know whether there is overlap and can verify that these are statistically differentiated. Do we know whether the results are officially published with all the raw data?

They give pretty detailed results (including the results for each state with more than 300 samples in the 4 week period ending July 17, 2021). I don't think anyone is in the habit of publishing raw data.

One problem with the PCR tests is that the selectivity may be insufficient. We do not know how many similar RNA samples would be rejected when they are not SARS-COV-2.

Genomic sequencing is different from a PCR diagnostic test.

[mikewhitney]

If you don't look, you won't see it.

According to the CDC, more than 175,000 samples have been sequenced in the US since December 20, 2020.


They give pretty detailed results (including the results for each state with more than 300 samples in the 4 week period ending July 17, 2021). I don't think anyone is in the habit of publishing raw data.



Genomic sequencing is different from a PCR diagnostic test.

Did you find a link to the procedures, studies and labs that were doing this work? Do they verify that a sample did not match between, for example, the original modeled sars-cov-2 and the Delta variant? It is largely useless information when coming from the CDC, so it helps to be able to confirm how they are assembling their information. It is important to have reproducible results and independent analysis.

We had seen the shoddy work of relying on the PCR tests with 97% false positives. We have seen Fauci say "no masks" then "wear masks" then "wear two masks." We saw the initial claim that a 2 week shutdown would fix this all.

Also, as I understand things, the rate of spread of variants are based on computer models and not on actual data. What is the uncertainty involved in these computer models that predict the spread?

If the NIH, CDC, WHO, WH and media promoted something logical and consistent, they would have deserved our trust. Instead, they have totally failed.

This situation is certainly a severe enough situation, with drastic measures, to deserve the most open scientific discussion and sharing of data. Ironically, the opposite has been done. Censorship that only allows information from Fauci, the CDC, WHO, Wikipedia, and Bill Gates.

[NorrinRadd]

Those following CDC guidance are in the process of phasing out PCR testing.

[mikewhitney]

Those following CDC guidance are in the process of phasing out PCR testing.

I think it was not all PCR processing but using less of it and rejecting some versions of the PCR process. There is supposed to be a cheaper, faster, less-accurate test that would be used in its place. I don't think I have a link on that information yet.

[Stoic]

Did you find a link to the procedures, studies and labs that were doing this work? Do they verify that a sample did not match between, for example, the original modeled sars-cov-2 and the Delta variant? It is largely useless information when coming from the CDC, so it helps to be able to confirm how they are assembling their information. It is important to have reproducible results and independent analysis.

Sorry, but they aren't set up to try to satisfy conspiracy theorists such as yourself. I think they realize there's no winning that game.

We had seen the shoddy work of relying on the PCR tests with 97% false positives.

That's just false.

We have seen Fauci say "no masks" then "wear masks" then "wear two masks."

The thing about science is that you learn things. When they learn something new, their recommendations sometimes change.

We saw the initial claim that a 2 week shutdown would fix this all.

I don't believe any officials said that a 2 week shutdown would fix this all.

Also, as I understand things, the rate of spread of variants are based on computer models and not on actual data. What is the uncertainty involved in these computer models that predict the spread?

You don't need computer models to see how fast Delta has become dominant in the US.

If the NIH, CDC, WHO, WH and media promoted something logical and consistent, they would have deserved our trust. Instead, they have totally failed.

There is nothing they could have done to get you to trust them.

This situation is certainly a severe enough situation, with drastic measures, to deserve the most open scientific discussion and sharing of data. Ironically, the opposite has been done. Censorship that only allows information from Fauci, the CDC, WHO, Wikipedia, and Bill Gates.

The only censorship I recall is Fauci not being allowed to speak to the media by the Trump administration, and the social networks trying to cut down on misinformation.

The former is admittedly pretty bad, but you can blame Trump. The latter, to the extent that it's actually a bad thing, can't be blamed on the government.

[Stoic]

Those following CDC guidance are in the process of phasing out PCR testing.

I don't believe that's true. They are going to phase out the use of the particular PCR test that the CDC developed early in 2020.

[mikewhitney]

Sorry, but they aren't set up to try to satisfy conspiracy theorists such as yourself. I think they realize there's no winning that game.


That's just false.


The thing about science is that you learn things. When they learn something new, their recommendations sometimes change.


I don't believe any officials said that a 2 week shutdown would fix this all.


You don't need computer models to see how fast Delta has become dominant in the US.


There is nothing they could have done to get you to trust them.


The only censorship I recall is Fauci not being allowed to speak to the media by the Trump administration, and the social networks trying to cut down on misinformation.

The former is admittedly pretty bad, but you can blame Trump. The latter, to the extent that it's actually a bad thing, can't be blamed on the government.

You are right. We don't need computer models for anything. (We had the foolish Ferguson computer model in the beginning which gave excuse to the governments to try a lockdown.) We need facts and science. But you reject those, so you are just left with a fantasy world. Now if you can show why the review of the corman drosten article is wrong, then you can participate in the intellectual/scientific side of the discussion.

You certainly have been in a little shell if you have not seen the censorship against doctors who have presented the science. Youtube and Twitter constantly ban people from saying anything different from WHO, CDC and Fauci. I wish we could all live happily in such a fantasy world. Oh. and by the way. Trump is no longer in office -- for whatever reason you liked him so much.

[Stoic]

You are right. We don't need computer models for anything. (We had the foolish Ferguson computer model in the beginning which gave excuse to the governments to try a lockdown.) We need facts and science. But you reject those, so you are just left with a fantasy world. Now if you can show why the review of the corman drosten article is wrong, then you can participate in the intellectual/scientific side of the discussion.

If I thought you were capable of understanding the Corman-Drosten article, I'd be glad to discuss it with you.

You certainly have been in a little shell if you have not seen the censorship against doctors who have presented the science. Youtube and Twitter constantly ban people from saying anything different from WHO, CDC and Fauci. I wish we could all live happily in such a fantasy world.

If someone wants to argue with the CDC, they should do it in a scientific journal. As for Youtube and Twitter, they belong to corporations who are free to censor whom they want.

Oh. and by the way. Trump is no longer in office -- for whatever reason you liked him so much.

The fact that he is out of office doesn't change history.

[mikewhitney]

If I thought you were capable of understanding the Corman-Drosten article, I'd be glad to discuss it with you.

Have you found fault with their analysis?

If someone wants to argue with the CDC, they should do it in a scientific journal. As for Youtube and Twitter, they belong to corporations who are free to censor whom they want.

What is to be argued? Does the CDC publish studies on their determination of the Delta variant penetration into society? Maybe if someone does a FOIA request to get the studies, procedures and raw data, then a rebuttal could be sent to the journals -- if the journals care to include this area of study. The Corman Drosten was presented as an open study because they did not trust the integrity of the medical journals on this matter. And, as a matter of fact, the medical journals had to rescind a couple studies that were decidedly false. Several years ago, an editor in one of the journals said that fifty percent of the studies are not reproducible. This either means that the science was bad or that the content was false from the beginning.
You may like to think that Youtube is a corporation operating in its own power, yet we have seen the government push to make these corporations restrict certain information. Also, with Google/Youtube, there is strong government ownership and contracts. So, independent action is not readily done without much financial loss.

The fact that he is out of office doesn't change history.

I'm sorry you miss Trump. I'm not sure why you mentioned him in the first place.

[Stoic]

Have you found fault with their analysis?

Partly with their analysis, and partly with the fact that they made it so easy for your to misinterpret it, and partly with your willingness to misinterpret it.

In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]

The study they reference (Jaafar et al 2020) was concerned with finding out when people are no longer contagious. For their particular test, they found that if the virus is detected at 35 cycles (but not at 34 or less), then the probability of being able to culture the virus was 3%, meaning that the subject was probably no longer contagious. This does not mean that there was no virus present in the other 97%, so it does not mean that 97% were false positives. (When we are testing for the virus, we care about more than whether the person being tested is contagious. The virus that was detected had to come from somewhere, so the number of positive results says a lot about how the virus is spreading in the community.)

On top of that, you can't really compare cycle counts between different tests, and a threshold value of 35 cycles does not mean that the virus was not detected at a lower number, and not all tests use a threshold value of 35.

So when you claim that 97% of all positive PCR results are false positives, you are many degrees of separation away from reality.