Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Mass Psychosis
Collapse
X
-
"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
-
Originally posted by Dimbulb View PostSo rather than address the scientific observations in my post you'll bury your head in the sand and continue trying to mislead others with false claims?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View Post...
So we have clear empirical evidence from New Zealand that the PCR covid test has a false positive rate of zero. And that in no way surprises me personally given my own experiences at work given I've personally observed a zero false positive rate for another PCR test. On the other hand, here in NZ we've seen quite a lot of false negatives coming from the PCR tests, e.g. a person in the quarantine facilities will test negative on their first test after a few days in the facility, but then test positive a week later once the infection has fully taken hold (and subsequent investigations conclude that there is no way they could have caught it within the quarantine facility, e.g. because it's a different strain to any covid that anyone in the facility ever before had); or a person will fully complete the 14 day quarantine and return negative PCR tests at both ends of it, and then a couple of days after getting out of quarantine will report symptoms and then return a positive PCR test, and it will be eventually determined from full genome sequencing that they had caught that covid in their country of origin before entering the 14 day quarantine.
So the Covid PCR test absolutely and for sure underreports the number of people with Covid. It generates plenty of false negatives, but seems to never generate any false positives.
You finally have added something meaningful in the discussion.
You also should be aware that the PCR process is not being used to identify variants. The identification of variants has to be done as a separate investigation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostGreat. you are explaining how the genomic sequence being detected is not the cause of covid-19 but may be detected as some unrelated thing after that person is sick.
You also should be aware that the PCR process is not being used to identify variants. The identification of variants has to be done as a separate investigation."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
I love your scientific response to the corman drosten review. Your skill at finding the experts against this review .... oh wait. You did not provide any arguments. You just like the kool aid.
Comment
-
Mike do you even know how PCR works? You seem to be making the claim that if they amplify any sample enough they can find any molecule and get a false positive. That isn't true. PCR Covid tests isolate and amplifies specific gene sequences that are unique to the COVID-19 virus. They are not just some random "molecule" that everyone has in their body. If the test finds those sequences then you have the COVID virus in your body. Or at least genetic remnants of it if you are over it by the time the test is taken. And as I think Starlight says above, if you have high amounts of the virus, it will show up in the PCR test after fewer cycles. If you don't have much in your body, then it won't show up until much higher cycles. Which is where you are misreading the 97% false positive thing from. Most infected people will come back with a positive after much fewer cycles. But if someone is getting over the sickness and is not longer infected, they might still show positive after 35-45 cycles. Which would mean that they are most likely not infected any longer (or could just be starting to become infected and have a low viral load). And scientist know this. Obviously. and take that into account.
But you don't get a positive result at any cycle count if you don't have the virus in your body. I have had a negative test result. If what you are claiming is true, then there would be NO negative results because they would just keep cycling till they found something. That doesn't happen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostMike do you even know how PCR works? You seem to be making the claim that if they amplify any sample enough they can find any molecule and get a false positive. That isn't true. PCR Covid tests isolate and amplifies specific gene sequences that are unique to the COVID-19 virus. They are not just some random "molecule" that everyone has in their body. If the test finds those sequences then you have the COVID virus in your body. Or at least genetic remnants of it if you are over it by the time the test is taken. And as I think Starlight says above, if you have high amounts of the virus, it will show up in the PCR test after fewer cycles. If you don't have much in your body, then it won't show up until much higher cycles. Which is where you are misreading the 97% false positive thing from. Most infected people will come back with a positive after much fewer cycles. But if someone is getting over the sickness and is not longer infected, they might still show positive after 35-45 cycles. Which would mean that they are most likely not infected any longer (or could just be starting to become infected and have a low viral load). And scientist know this. Obviously. and take that into account.
But you don't get a positive result at any cycle count if you don't have the virus in your body. I have had a negative test result. If what you are claiming is true, then there would be NO negative results because they would just keep cycling till they found something. That doesn't happen.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
The issue is that even if someone doesn't have enough of the China flu virus in their body to make them sick or even contagious, the PCR test can still be rigged to detect it -- Fauci the Fraud and the CDC were recommending a very high number of cycles; I believe it was 40 -- so it was possible to get a "positive" that was meaningless. This is what is being referred to when people say the PCR test was generating "false positives". The CDC did eventually reduce the recommended number cycles to 28 or fewer (coincidentally right around the time the vaccines were being rolled out; perhaps an attempt to deliberately reduce the number of people who tested "positive" in order to promote the effectiveness of the vaccines?) before eventually abandoning PCR in favor a test they claim is more accurate -- and curiously one they say that, unlike previous tests, can distinguish between the China flu and other common flus, suggesting that previous tests could not!
But the bit about abandoning PCR testing is incorrect. They still use PCR tests. They are just saying a specific type of real-time test started in Feb 2020 is not a good one to use.
Comment
-
And with that I suddenly understand the left's claim that evidence isn't needed because it's the seriousness of the charge that counts. First heard it used by Democrats who wanted a Congressional inquiry into the elder Bush all while admitting that there wasn't a shred of evidence they could bring forward. It's the seriousness of the charge that counts.
Now I get it.
If there is even 0.000000000000000000000000000001% chance of that being true, it is a legit reason to refuse a vax. smiley shudder.gif
Btw, roguetech labs & bait shop still has plenty of brain and eye bleach available
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAnd with that I suddenly understand the left's claim that evidence isn't needed because it's the seriousness of the charge that counts. First heard it used by Democrats who wanted a Congressional inquiry into the elder Bush all while admitting that there wasn't a shred of evidence they could bring forward. It's the seriousness of the charge that counts.
Now I get it.
If there is even 0.000000000000000000000000000001% chance of that being true, it is a legit reason to refuse a vax. smiley shudder.gif
Btw, roguetech labs & bait shop still has plenty of brain and eye bleach available
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThe issue is that even if someone doesn't have enough of the China flu virus in their body to make them sick or even contagious, the PCR test can still be rigged to detect it
Viruses multiply inside a person's body. So they start off with a low amount, and it then massively increases over the course of a couple of weeks. This is why PCR often returns a negative result in the first part of the infection, because the virus amount is so low or it isn't yet in the particular cells being tested.
This is what is being referred to when people say the PCR test was generating "false positives".
and curiously one they say that, unlike previous tests, can distinguish between the China flu and other common flus, suggesting that previous tests could not!
The Covid PCR was developed to identify Covid and only Covid. As the US heads into the flu season, the CDC is saying it also wants to be able to identify the flu as well, so if someone has a Covid test, they can say whether or not the person has Covid (which is what the previous test did) and also say whether or not the person has the flu (which is what the new test will also do)."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dimbulb View PostWhy would you want to not detect it in such a case? The person still has covid.
Viruses multiply inside a person's body. So they start off with a low amount, and it then massively increases over the course of a couple of weeks. This is why PCR often returns a negative result in the first part of the infection, because the virus amount is so low or it isn't yet in the particular cells being tested.
No, that is not what they mean. It is neither what scientists mean by false positives, nor what the crazies like Mike mean when they accuse the PCR test of generating false positives.
That Fox News article is pretty badly written and misleading. Fact checkers had to correct them. At no point was anyone using a PCR test for Covid that gave false positives for Covid if a person had the flu.
The Covid PCR was developed to identify Covid and only Covid. As the US heads into the flu season, the CDC is saying it also wants to be able to identify the flu as well, so if someone has a Covid test, they can say whether or not the person has Covid (which is what the previous test did) and also say whether or not the person has the flu (which is what the new test will also do).
The point, of course, is that just because someone might have a small amount of a virus that can be detected after running over three dozen cycles of the PCR test doesn't mean they are sick, that they will get sick, or that they will ever even be contagious. And yet those tests were being added to the "positive" column for the China flu which greatly exaggerated the number of "cases" in the United States.
As for the "fact check", it looks more like spin, still trying to prop up PCR as the "gold standard" for diagnostic testing despite Kary Mullis' warnings. That makes the editorial a bit suspect.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
157 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
373 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment