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.
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.Duane Gish wanted the same thing, too.
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.When they ere locking down the nation the test were run at such higher cycles.
You haven't criticized anything.Dude, you really need to look up what a Gish Gallop is, so that you can understand why I'm criticizing it.
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.
Well, what are YOUR medical credentials, since you seem so quick to judge others in this area?Medical outsiders substitute zeal for science. Why don't you know?
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.Calling your "essay" . . .
You're only being asked what this means:Your essay, yes.
Please tell me you don't actually need to look up what that term means...
It's definitely not mindless; it's precise and to-the-point.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.
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.No link?
Nope. I wanted to read the quote in context.Wow! You really believe that I made up that comment from the CDC. [.. snip ..]
I see. It's a document which clearly puts the test into context:
So, why did the CDC use an inappropriate test that was also set too high according to even them?Nope. I wanted to read the quote in context.
You're afraid to interpret what the CDC said because it actually means what it says?Please re-read the very first item in my list. Therein lies the answer to your question.