CDC, FDA faked covid test protocol using common cold

CrowCross

Well-known member
There are more false negatives. I've seen it in practice.
I recently saw some golfer??? Olympic person who tested negative twice then on the third time tested +.

The problem is when someone tested + ...with a cold...they often count it as a + covid.
 

vibise

Well-known member
False claim


In the lab alert, the CDC said it was withdrawing the EUA request because, rather than testing only for the covid virus, it wants labs to test people for multiple viruses simultaneously, using what is known as "a multiplexed method." The CDC's 2019-nCoV RT-PCR panel tests only for the covid virus...
But the lab alert does not mean the CDC's test cannot differentiate between covid and the flu.

In fact, the CDC's 2019-nCoV RT-PCR test was developed to look for the presence of a nucleic acid found only in the covid virus, said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

"It is not remotely accurate that the CDC test doesn't differentiate between flu and SARS-CoV-2. It doesn't detect influenza. It only detects SARS-CoV-2,
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
The problem is when someone tested + ...with a cold...they often count it as a + covid.
It's much better to have a false positive than a false negative.

... and you've spent 0 effort demonstrating that the false positive are creating statistically-significant problems.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
I recently saw some golfer??? Olympic person who tested negative twice then on the third time tested +.

The problem is when someone tested + ...with a cold...they often count it as a + covid.
I can only speak for the hospital I worked for but we verified positives with x-ray. If it was just a cold they wouldn't have the crackled glass appearance of the lungs on x-ray. But again, I don't know about all hospitals.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
I can only speak for the hospital I worked for but we verified positives with x-ray. If it was just a cold they wouldn't have the crackled glass appearance of the lungs on x-ray. But again, I don't know about all hospitals.
Sounds like a good hospital...sounds like there was a positive test then they used x-rays to verify.

Even the inventor has said the PCR test is nothing more than an indicator. A means of saying we should look deeper.

You seem to be talking about peiople who were sick enough to be admitted. Many people are getting tested in a drug store or urgent care facility...and showing no symptoms...or little symptoms..and being told they have covid. How many of those cases are actually a cold or the flu? The answer is, we can't tell...don't know.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Sounds like a good hospital...sounds like there was a positive test then they used x-rays to verify.

Even the inventor has said the PCR test is nothing more than an indicator. A means of saying we should look deeper.

You seem to be talking about peiople who were sick enough to be admitted. Many people are getting tested in a drug store or urgent care facility...and showing no symptoms...or little symptoms..and being told they have covid. How many of those cases are actually a cold or the flu? The answer is, we can't tell...don't know.
The existing test only identifies covid, not the flu.
The CDC is recommending that the test be converted to a multiplex version that can independently tell if covid or flu or both are present.
 

Deist

Active member
Sounds like a good hospital...sounds like there was a positive test then they used x-rays to verify.

Even the inventor has said the PCR test is nothing more than an indicator. A means of saying we should look deeper.

You seem to be talking about peiople who were sick enough to be admitted. Many people are getting tested in a drug store or urgent care facility...and showing no symptoms...or little symptoms..and being told they have covid. How many of those cases are actually a cold or the flu? The answer is, we can't tell...don't know.
I listened to and watched the video you posted and that is VERRRRYY interesting, and actually confirms my suspicions. I noted that this year the flu disappeared. Some people claim it was because people were masking up. That is crazy because that means masks work on the flu but not Covid. I have to research this guy and this issue more before I go crazy myself over it. But it makes sense that they are classifying the flu as Covid and have been for quite some time.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
That's not a translation of the text you posted, no.

You're free to say whatever you want here (within the limits of CARM's ruleset), but please stop pretending you understand the scientific stuff you try to post. You clearly do not.
So you are not a Med Tech ASCP and have no medical credentials.
Stop pretending you are a lab expert. No training and no credentials.

You don't even have a clue what the requirements are to become a MLT. So you need to Google up.

Medical outsiders substitute zeal for science. Why don't you know?
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
I listened to and watched the video you posted and that is VERRRRYY interesting, and actually confirms my suspicions. I noted that this year the flu disappeared. Some people claim it was because people were masking up. That is crazy because that means masks work on the flu but not Covid. I have to research this guy and this issue more before I go crazy myself over it. But it makes sense that they are classifying the flu as Covid and have been for quite some time.
That's the first time I saw that guy....what he did was read from a CDC document. Then connected the dots.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I can only speak for the hospital I worked for but we verified positives with x-ray. If it was just a cold they wouldn't have the crackled glass appearance of the lungs on x-ray. But again, I don't know about all hospitals.
The arm chair experts that are so disagreeable here don't come from medical credentials.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Wow....who knows. Many...they had to drive up the numbers.

There was a time if you died and had a cough...it was called covid-19.
One of the professional medical quirks is a knack of asking the right questions. You died and had contact with people purported to be infected you were labeled covid.
 

Storch

Member
The PCR test that was used to detect coronavirus was set at a 40-cycle threshold of amplification/replication as per the FDA's recommendation. However, even infectious disease "expert" Tony himself is on record stating that an amplification/replication cycle above 35 is going to spit out almost all false-positives; others say anything above 30 cycles is meaningless. There was even a New York Times article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives. It takes almost zero critical thinking skills to draw the obvious conclusion. Ninety percent false positives means no pandemic.

So, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? That's a rhetorical question; they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic. Also, why didn't Tony bother to speak up concerning what can only be described as a deliberate and gross misapplication of a test? We'll never know because, thanks to a complicit media, Mr. Fauci is not required to publicly answer even one challenge to his dire predictions which are based on 90% false positive returns from a PCR test that was knowingly set too high.

Unfortunately, unless some talking head comes on tv and tells people it's okay to apply their own critical thinking skills to those factual numbers, they won't do it. They think they need permission to make the obvious inference and then respond to the falsehood they've been fed. And the real kicker is that the only ones they'll accept permission from are the same ones who neglected to inform them of the reason for all the false positives in the first place.
 

Storch

Member
Thu 15 Apr, 2021 10:43 pm
Covid-19 Quotations: Questioning PCR Reliability

“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.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.” — Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“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

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“…all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” — Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer


“…false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients.” — The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30614-5/fulltext

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

https://maskoffmn.org/#kary

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.” — Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer

“…up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” — The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

“Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person” — The World Health Organization

“Caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” — The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19

Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste
“The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…” — Dominic Raab – First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste/5729700

“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.” — FDA

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“…no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.” — Dr. Elena Surkova; Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy – Public Health Englamd; Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College
 
Top