Members banned from this thread: Truth Detector, MAGA MAN, Sailor and Stone |
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
I’m not here to keep you up to date on current events.
The WHO recently put out PCR testing guidelines that stipulated a lower number of cycles. Why? Because the tests were being over cycled and when PCR tests are over cycled they can produce false positives. The WHO didn’t step in just for giggles, they did it to improve the data.
The only question is how much of the previous data was corrupted. It’s not a question of if—it’s only a question of numbers and how much.
You may have noticed a steep drop off in cases...well.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Thanks for sharing your latest conspiracy theory. Does that WHO work out of the basement of a Pizza Parlor?
The World Health Organization did not stipulate a lower number of cycles. The World Health Organization did not state that when PCR tests are over cycled they produce false positives.
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-...-users-2020-05
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
I do not find wearing a mask is so arduous. They are readily available. It shows you accept that others may be very serious about masking. It is a consideration. The medical profession and all the pandemic pros say masking helps. Tucker says they don't. The rightys say they don't. A recent study says masking cuts the infection rate by 2 or 3 percent.
I do not think it is difficult to pick a side in this. Experts v conspiracy nuts.
Right here:
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. [previous link]
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Yes. And? It doesn't say what you claimed it said.
It doesn't stipulate a lower number of cycles. It says to follow manufacturer instructions.
It doesn't say the tests have been overcycled. It says to follow the manufacturer instructions
It doesn't say overcycled tests have resulted in a number of false positives. It says to follow the manufacturers instructions.
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer. Lab technicians should follow manufacturers instructions. Seems pretty simple.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). Simply reiterates that weak positive results need careful interpretation. At no time says that weak positives have been misinterpreted in the past. The referenced Sars report says when questionable results occur the patient should be resampled and retested. This says nothing about reducing the number of cycles. It says nothing about too many cycles were used in the past.
The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Since the detection is inverse to the viral load follow the manufacturers instructions for determining positivity threshold. Says nothing about any tests having been overcycled. Says nothing about the need to reduce the number of cycles. It says to follow the manufacturers instructions to determine if there needs to be a manual adjustment.
Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.Says nothing about false positives being counted as positives. Reiterates the need to do more testing if results look false.
Thanks for playing "Darth Omar can't read worth shit." Your interpretation of this would mean every time a teacher before a test tells their students to keep their eyes on their own tests it means that the majority of test takers have cheated. Explaining the rules doesn't mean that everyone in the past violated the rules.
So here is your claim -
3 claims on your part that are all false or misleading.The WHO recently put out PCR testing guidelines that stipulated a lower number of cycles. Why? Because the tests were being over cycled and when PCR tests are over cycled they can produce false positives. The WHO didn’t step in just for giggles, they did it to improve the data.
1. False - WHO says nothing about stipulating a lower number of cycles.
2. False - WHO says nothing about tests being overcycled
3. Half truth -WHO says more cycles are needed to detect a smaller viral load so weak positives require careful interpretation. It does not say overcycling produces false positives.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
The NYT made that claim back in July, so you have a problem with them. No point in shooting the messenger.
According to one of your own approved sources, PCR tests were being over cycled and producing up to 90% false positives in some instances.
Why did the WHO or the CDC or Fauci or someone/anyone, wait so damned long on spreading the word?
The reason the WHO recommended lab technicians follow the manufacture recommendations on PCR cycles *is because they were being over cycled to produce a high rate of false positives*. So, shortly after the Big Guy was installed the WHO sent out their carefully constructed memo on testing guidelines.
Seems simple enough.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Shots will not help immediately. I got my first one wed. They said it takes about 4 to 6 weeks before it works well. It operates at the DNA level .https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-l...b6218b42ea3760 I don't understand the concept of a messenger at the DNA level instructing your body to create antibodies against a virus it has not encountered. There were hundreds of people there, all masked and all getting shots.
Bookmarks