CDC, FDA faked covid test protocol using common cold

LifeIn

Well-known member
CDC, FDA faked covid test protocol using common cold

It's true. The truth about PCR swab up your nose Covid -19 test.

They have even admitted it. Go to the 13:10 minute mark and start listening there.

Also go to the FDA Gov site...and do a search for the word "isolates"if you want to see the document.
The admittance in written in geeky terms...but the video explains it.

Here's what it says.

The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019- nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. Samples were extracted using the QIAGEN EZ1 Advanced XL instrument and EZ1 DSP Virus Kit (Cat# 62724) and manually with the QIAGEN DSP Viral RNA Mini Kit (Cat# 61904). Real-Time RT-PCR assays were performed using the Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath™ 1-Step RT-qPCR Master Mix, CG (Cat# A15299) on the Applied Biosystems™ 7500 Fast Dx RealTime PCR Instrument according to the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel instructions for use.

This post is a good example of a very common type of disinformation that we find circulating today. It starts with something authoritative that the average person cannot fully understand, and then it adds an unauthoritative (but smart sounding and very biased) "explanation" of that authoritative document. If the authoritative document from the FDA was supposed to be the "smoking gun" that proves the PCR test is invalid as a test for covid, then no "explanation" would be necessary. The fact that it is necessary to "explain" it is proof that the document does not carry the weight the promoters of disinformation say it does.

The appeal of these types of tactics is through arrogance - not on the part of the promoter, but on the part of the reader. The promoter of the disinformation appeals to the reader's arrogance. No one wants to admit that they are stupid. And so when challenged by an explanation that they cannot understand, they try (and fail) to find the error in the fraudulent "explanation", they tend to join the "smart" people and agree with the explanation. This is similar to the psychology behind the children's story, "The Emperor's New Clothes". It takes a certain amount of humility to admit "I don't see the clothes."
 

Storch

Member
Duane Gish wanted the same thing, too.
Dude, you really need to address my posts. If you don't, it will give the impression that you'd rather deny it than admit it. So, explain how you know that the FDA got it wrong when they said a cycle threshold of 40 is meaningless.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
When they ere locking down the nation the test were run at such higher cycles.
That was the manufacturers' faults. But so far as I know, they may be run at lower cycles now. The government does not regulate them, so it is still apparently up to the manufacturers to set the limit.
 
Last edited:

Storch

Member
Dude, you really need to look up what a Gish Gallop is, so that you can understand why I'm criticizing it.
You haven't criticized anything.

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

So, you should call up the FDA and explain how their statement can be written off as Gish Gallop.

But seriously, why would they say such a thing?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
So you are not a Med Tech ASCP and have no medical credentials.

Are YOU a med tech ASCP with medical credentials?
Stop pretending you are a lab expert. No training and no credentials.

Where is he pretending anything? Are YOU a lab expert?
You don't even have a clue what the requirements are to become a MLT. So you need to Google up.

So, perhaps, do you.
Medical outsiders substitute zeal for science. Why don't you know?
Well, what are YOUR medical credentials, since you seem so quick to judge others in this area?
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
You haven't criticized anything.
Calling your "essay" a Gish Gallop is definitely a criticism about a specific thing.

You can keep typing without responding (which, incidentally, validates my criticism), and as long as you do, I'll continue to do the same.
 

Storch

Member
Calling your "essay" . . .
My essay? I'm telling you what the FDA has said. What do you think about what they said; not what I said, but what the FDA has said.

And here's something from the WHO: “

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.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Last edited:

Storch

Member
Your essay, yes.

Please tell me you don't actually need to look up what that term means...
You're only being asked what this means:

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.”

Now before you lapse back into your mindless Gish Gallop response, Give your interpretation of what was said there.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
You're only being asked what this means:

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.”

Now before you lapse back into your mindless Gish Gallop response, Give your interpretation of what was said there.
It's definitely not mindless; it's precise and to-the-point.

Give me a link for the quote, and I'll entertain a response.
 

Storch

Member
Wow! You really believe that I made up that comment from the CDC. What you're really telling me is that you've done zero research to determine whether or not the statement is fact.

I'll do it for you:


Now, interpret what they've written so that we can see whether or not you're still in denial.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.”
 
Last edited:

Whateverman

Well-known member
Wow! You really believe that I made up that comment from the CDC. [.. snip ..]
Nope. I wanted to read the quote in context.

I see. It's a document which clearly puts the test into context:
  • for emergency use only
  • Negative results from pooled testing should not be treated as definitive
  • pooled testing (which was used very early in US efforts to assess the extent of the infection)
  • Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for
    treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical
    observations, patient history, and epidemiological information
Pooled testing isn't being used much any more, because individual testing is better and more practical now than it used to be.
 

Storch

Member
Nope. I wanted to read the quote in context.
So, why did the CDC use an inappropriate test that was also set too high according to even them?

Do you believe that what you posted negates this:

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.”

If they knew that, why the ridiculously high setting from the git go?
 

Storch

Member
Please re-read the very first item in my list. Therein lies the answer to your question.
You're afraid to interpret what the CDC said because it actually means what it says?

Let's try it this way. Did the CDC declare that the PCR-test will determine what specific virus is being detected? Did they say that the PCR-test will determine the state of that virus? Where have they ever said anything like that? So, again, you don't want to interpret what I put right in front of your eyes.
 
Top