Announcement

Collapse

Health Science 101 Guidelines

Greetings! Welcome to Health Science.

Here's where we talk about the latest fad diets, the advantages of vegetarianism, the joy of exercise and good health. Like everywhere else at Tweb our decorum rules apply.

This is a place to exchange ideas and network with other health conscience folks, this isn't a forum for heated debate.
See more
See less

As Delta Approaches...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    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.
    You confirmed what I said. If the PCR process has any meaning, its value is in telling who is contagious. If the person is not contagious, the test result is a nothingburger. It never should have been counted as a positive case. As Kary Mullis points out "you can have a bit of everything in your body. If the PCR magnifies an insignificant amount, the result is meaningless." [highly paraphrased]

    You also point out another important element. The PCR multiplication process gives meaningless results (and never useful for diagnostic purposes) unless the CT is included with the detection of a thing in the body. There also is a problem of selectivity -- we never even started with an isolated specimen that was shown to cause COVID-19. The PCR processes were based on computer models.

    It is good to see your are looking at some of the science.
    Last edited by mikewhitney; 08-05-2021, 09:18 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

      You confirmed what I said. If the PCR process has any meaning, its value is in telling who is contagious. If the person is not contagious, the test result is a nothingburger. It never should have been counted as a positive case. As Kary Mullis points out "you can have a bit of everything in your body. If the PCR magnifies an insignificant amount, the result is meaningless." [highly paraphrased]

      You also point out another important element. The PCR multiplication process gives meaningless results (and never useful for diagnostic purposes) unless the CT is included with the detection of a thing in the body. There also is a problem of selectivity -- we never even started with an isolated specimen that was shown to cause COVID-19. The PCR processes were based on computer models.

      It is good to see your are looking at some of the science.
      In case you missed this part,


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

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Stoic View Post

        In case you missed this part,


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

        There was nothing pertinent in that phrase so I did not need to reply to it. You seemed to miss the rest of the discussion too.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

          There was nothing pertinent in that phrase so I did not need to reply to it. You seemed to miss the rest of the discussion too.
          Does that mean you are ready to abandon your claim that 97% of positive PCR tests are false positives?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Stoic View Post

            Does that mean you are ready to abandon your claim that 97% of positive PCR tests are false positives?
            I doubt it. I tried to discuss that report with him before too and it led nowhere. He just repeats it again and again.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              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?
              More importantly, are folks getting vaccinated?

              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?
              I don't know about the US, but the UK is over-run with the Delta variant....... so more and more people are seeing the common sense of........ vaccination!

              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.
              Just get vaccinated. 20% of all our serious Covid cases are now young people who haven't been vaccinated.
              Our medics are preparing to issue Covid booster vaccinations soon.

              Last Saturday 31/07 morning my wife was very poorly, with temperature and headache, loss of strength, etc and I had to take her to Manston Airport PCR testing centre at Noon. This is a very large operation and I counted 9 operatives receiving us, directing us, checking our IDs, administering the test and directing us off the premises. From the time we arrived to the time we left I didn't see another single vehicle enter the test site. The place was empty. Nobody came in or out. On Monday morning 02/08 the NHS sent a text message to tell that she had a negative test.

              I don't know why, but I'm guessing that our vaccination centres are still very very busy.

              Get vaccinated, yes?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                Does that mean you are ready to abandon your claim that 97% of positive PCR tests are false positives?
                First thing to note is that there is no PCR Test. There is a PCR Process. I now would go with what the inventor of the PCR process said. This is a change of terminology. If everything else were set up correctly, the PCR process could detect a single sample (full or fragment) of RNA and multiply enough to produce a detection signal. The problem is not the process itself. The actual problem is determining the meaning of it. So we could say that the interpretation results in 97% false positives. Thanks for pushing the issue until we could come to that clarification.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by eider View Post

                  More importantly, are folks getting vaccinated?


                  I don't know about the US, but the UK is over-run with the Delta variant....... so more and more people are seeing the common sense of........ vaccination!



                  Just get vaccinated. 20% of all our serious Covid cases are now young people who haven't been vaccinated.
                  Our medics are preparing to issue Covid booster vaccinations soon.

                  Last Saturday 31/07 morning my wife was very poorly, with temperature and headache, loss of strength, etc and I had to take her to Manston Airport PCR testing centre at Noon. This is a very large operation and I counted 9 operatives receiving us, directing us, checking our IDs, administering the test and directing us off the premises. From the time we arrived to the time we left I didn't see another single vehicle enter the test site. The place was empty. Nobody came in or out. On Monday morning 02/08 the NHS sent a text message to tell that she had a negative test.

                  I don't know why, but I'm guessing that our vaccination centres are still very very busy.

                  Get vaccinated, yes?
                  Thanks for your free advice. I should wait until the Pharma companies find a safer and more effective covid shot. So far there are too many deaths and adverse effects. I hope the best for you and your family.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                    First thing to note is that there is no PCR Test. There is a PCR Process. I now would go with what the inventor of the PCR process said. This is a change of terminology. If everything else were set up correctly, the PCR process could detect a single sample (full or fragment) of RNA and multiply enough to produce a detection signal. The problem is not the process itself. The actual problem is determining the meaning of it. So we could say that the interpretation results in 97% false positives. Thanks for pushing the issue until we could come to that clarification.
                    The interpretation does not result in 97% false positives, for the reasons I gave here.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                      The interpretation does not result in 97% false positives, for the reasons I gave here.
                      You end up missing the rest of the discussion. Then we just go around in circles without you adding anything useful. Most PCR processes have been done at 40-45 and thus are more useless. There is absolutely no reason that PCR was used here unless someone had symptoms -- and it might help. Even if they have symptoms, they are flu-like symptoms so it would be ambiguous whether someone had the flu with a positive interpretation of the PCR results or if they actually suffered from covid-19 caused by a sars-cov2 source. There are too many things wrong with this whole covid fiasco.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        You end up missing the rest of the discussion. Then we just go around in circles without you adding anything useful. Most PCR processes have been done at 40-45 and thus are more useless.
                        Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that most PCR processes have been done at 40-45 cycles?

                        Do you understand that even a positive at 40-45 cyles still indicates the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA? That might not prove that the person is contagious, but it does indicate exposure, which is useful information for epidemiologists.

                        There is absolutely no reason that PCR was used here unless someone had symptoms -- and it might help. Even if they have symptoms, they are flu-like symptoms so it would be ambiguous whether someone had the flu with a positive interpretation of the PCR results or if they actually suffered from covid-19 caused by a sars-cov2 source. There are too many things wrong with this whole covid fiasco.
                        You do realize that the flu would not have caused 600,000 deaths in the US, right?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                          Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that most PCR processes have been done at 40-45 cycles?

                          Do you understand that even a positive at 40-45 cyles still indicates the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA? That might not prove that the person is contagious, but it does indicate exposure, which is useful information for epidemiologists.


                          You do realize that the flu would not have caused 600,000 deaths in the US, right?
                          You do realize that most deaths were caused by things like placing Do-not-resuscitate orders on patients who could have been revived. You also know that sick people were pushed into care homes to spread the sickness further. You do know that Ivermectin, high-dosage Vitamin D, and Budesonide (among many other treatments) are effective but have been excluded from many hospital protocols. You also know that over 80% of those deaths had 3 or more comorbidities involving patients over 70. So you can conclude that most of these deaths are due to malpractice and horrible hospital protocols plus others were due to sickness that would happen one way or another to the elderly.

                          You also know that we reset the death counts after a season or, at least, after a year. You further know that many people were designated as covid patients when they came in for other injuries but happen to be detected for sars-cov2 with inflated PCR processes.

                          The best I can tell so far on the 45CT is that there is a statement about 45 cycles at 95C in the Corman Drosten study and this is mentioned in the review of that study as well. (Another flaw in the Corman Drosten study is the lack of a clear statement of recommendations for the CT limit.) The other bit of information I have is that the Pfizer study used PCR equipment which has a footnote concerning cycles that reach 45. The Cephied PCR system notes that:
                          The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test includes an Early Assay Termination (EAT) function which will provide earlier time to
                          results in high titer specimens if the signal from the target nucleic acid reaches a predetermined threshold before the full 45 PCR
                          cycles have been completed. When SARS-CoV-2 titers are high enough to initiate the EAT function, the SPC amplification
                          curve may not be seen and its results may not be reported.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                            You do realize that most deaths were caused by things like placing Do-not-resuscitate orders on patients who could have been revived. You also know that sick people were pushed into care homes to spread the sickness further. You do know that Ivermectin, high-dosage Vitamin D, and Budesonide (among many other treatments) are effective but have been excluded from many hospital protocols. You also know that over 80% of those deaths had 3 or more comorbidities involving patients over 70. So you can conclude that most of these deaths are due to malpractice and horrible hospital protocols plus others were due to sickness that would happen one way or another to the elderly.

                            You also know that we reset the death counts after a season or, at least, after a year. You further know that many people were designated as covid patients when they came in for other injuries but happen to be detected for sars-cov2 with inflated PCR processes.
                            Stop saying I know things that are complete bunk.

                            The best I can tell so far on the 45CT is that there is a statement about 45 cycles at 95C in the Corman Drosten study and this is mentioned in the review of that study as well. (Another flaw in the Corman Drosten study is the lack of a clear statement of recommendations for the CT limit.) The other bit of information I have is that the Pfizer study used PCR equipment which has a footnote concerning cycles that reach 45. The Cephied PCR system notes that:
                            If the Pfizer study's PCR equipment had had a high rate of false positives, the study results would not have been good enough to get their vaccine authorized.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                              Stop saying I know things that are complete bunk.


                              If the Pfizer study's PCR equipment had had a high rate of false positives, the study results would not have been good enough to get their vaccine authorized.

                              You would think that it should have failed. I don't think the failings of the PCR process were on the mind of those doing the emergency authorization.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                                Thanks for your free advice.
                                No probs....

                                I should wait until the Pharma companies find a safer and more effective covid shot. So far there are too many deaths and adverse effects.
                                75% of adults over 30 years (in the UK) have now received two vaccinations. The hospital admissions and deaths are now mostly counted among those who are unvaccinated.
                                Anti-vaxxers in the UK are now slowly coming to be blamed for the present covid deaths and hospital admission's, I'm afraid.

                                I hope the best for you and your family.
                                Thank you......... and to you and yours.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X