By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:20 - May 22 by Professor
Not the case- plenty of asymptomatic carriage. 45 Cycles is high and a reason for some false positives. But, viable virus was detected in the validation beyond Ct40 (40 cycles) and a lower value would lead to a massive false negative increase. The balance would favour not having these. Most positives are in the 20-30 cycle range anyway. It’s an argument to be aware of false positives when we have low numbers, but of the 2,800 positives yesterday perhaps 20 are false. Better safe than sorry
Thank you prof, I won't pretend to understand, i read it twice, and then my head started to hurt..
Think I'll have a day of forgetting about covid, go over my friends a couple of hours earlier than planned to watch the footy.
libera nos a malo
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:36 - May 22 with 1706 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:57 - May 22 by Jack123
I think it was the way they were conducting the tests prof, cycles used.
I read something the other day, that unless you are ill, a positive test is not valid.
Jack123 do not apologise for asking questions, in this case you are in very good company, because many of Prof's fellow scientists have been and still are asking much harder questions. In fact they have categorically stated that as designed and approved by the WHO the PCR test with up to 45 cycles is totally useless for mass testing for COVID and making policy decisions based on it.
Bearing in mind that this is not me, it is not conspiracy theorists saying this, it is his fellow scientist, who based on past experience he will viciously attack when they disagree with him.
We have discussd this before on other posts, but here iaresome updates.
Currently there is another court case going on in Maritoba county in Canada, their chief microbioligist and Laboratory Specialist Dr. Jared Bullard, the Justice Centre’s expert medical witnesses, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, world-famous epidemiologist and Professor of Medicine from Stanford University and Dr. Thomas Warren, infectious disease specialist and medical microbiologist all agree that the test as designed and authorised by the WHO is not fit for purpose. In fact Dr, Bullard stated that it was ony 44% accurate for predicting Viral growth in a lab, which is the Gold Standard laboratory test.
Studies have been carried out and published that show high cycle rates are totally inaccurate, I have pointed these out to prof in the past he just poo poos them and says I do not know how to read studies.
There are also a studies based on the infectivity of asymptomatic COVID carriers found by positive PCR testing, less than 10% were actually able to infect people. There is an early Chinese one which various "Fact Checkers" have tried to debunk, but the conclusion still stand. Here is a meta analysis of those studies.
A while back the WHO was forced to clarify that PCR tests should be carried out to the kit manufacturers instructions, ie not to the Corman/Dorsten protocol.
Much more recently the US CDC has changed it's PRC test protocol for Vaccinated people (but not unvaccinated people??) to a maximum of 28 cycles, they don't want false positives pushing up the numbers that get COVID after a Vaccine, they have enough of them anyway. Despite what was said by others here is the video of Fauci himself saying that tests with over 35 cycles are worthless
But the PCR can be the Gold Standard of fast testing provided the cycles are kept below 28. Cue prof to say it is a conspiracy theory or these people are clueless, or lying or something as he did when I first started posting on the subject.
-1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:43 - May 23 with 1625 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:35 - May 23 by A_Fans_Dad
Jack123 do not apologise for asking questions, in this case you are in very good company, because many of Prof's fellow scientists have been and still are asking much harder questions. In fact they have categorically stated that as designed and approved by the WHO the PCR test with up to 45 cycles is totally useless for mass testing for COVID and making policy decisions based on it.
Bearing in mind that this is not me, it is not conspiracy theorists saying this, it is his fellow scientist, who based on past experience he will viciously attack when they disagree with him.
We have discussd this before on other posts, but here iaresome updates.
Currently there is another court case going on in Maritoba county in Canada, their chief microbioligist and Laboratory Specialist Dr. Jared Bullard, the Justice Centre’s expert medical witnesses, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, world-famous epidemiologist and Professor of Medicine from Stanford University and Dr. Thomas Warren, infectious disease specialist and medical microbiologist all agree that the test as designed and authorised by the WHO is not fit for purpose. In fact Dr, Bullard stated that it was ony 44% accurate for predicting Viral growth in a lab, which is the Gold Standard laboratory test.
Studies have been carried out and published that show high cycle rates are totally inaccurate, I have pointed these out to prof in the past he just poo poos them and says I do not know how to read studies.
There are also a studies based on the infectivity of asymptomatic COVID carriers found by positive PCR testing, less than 10% were actually able to infect people. There is an early Chinese one which various "Fact Checkers" have tried to debunk, but the conclusion still stand. Here is a meta analysis of those studies.
A while back the WHO was forced to clarify that PCR tests should be carried out to the kit manufacturers instructions, ie not to the Corman/Dorsten protocol.
Much more recently the US CDC has changed it's PRC test protocol for Vaccinated people (but not unvaccinated people??) to a maximum of 28 cycles, they don't want false positives pushing up the numbers that get COVID after a Vaccine, they have enough of them anyway. Despite what was said by others here is the video of Fauci himself saying that tests with over 35 cycles are worthless
But the PCR can be the Gold Standard of fast testing provided the cycles are kept below 28. Cue prof to say it is a conspiracy theory or these people are clueless, or lying or something as he did when I first started posting on the subject.
Just when you think it's safe to come on here
You give it out, you take it back it`s all part of the game
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:57 - May 21 by KeithHaynes
My youngest daughter, husband four children have followed the rules religiously, May I submit this as reliable information based on the fact none of them have confirmed Covid.
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:35 - May 23 by A_Fans_Dad
Jack123 do not apologise for asking questions, in this case you are in very good company, because many of Prof's fellow scientists have been and still are asking much harder questions. In fact they have categorically stated that as designed and approved by the WHO the PCR test with up to 45 cycles is totally useless for mass testing for COVID and making policy decisions based on it.
Bearing in mind that this is not me, it is not conspiracy theorists saying this, it is his fellow scientist, who based on past experience he will viciously attack when they disagree with him.
We have discussd this before on other posts, but here iaresome updates.
Currently there is another court case going on in Maritoba county in Canada, their chief microbioligist and Laboratory Specialist Dr. Jared Bullard, the Justice Centre’s expert medical witnesses, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, world-famous epidemiologist and Professor of Medicine from Stanford University and Dr. Thomas Warren, infectious disease specialist and medical microbiologist all agree that the test as designed and authorised by the WHO is not fit for purpose. In fact Dr, Bullard stated that it was ony 44% accurate for predicting Viral growth in a lab, which is the Gold Standard laboratory test.
Studies have been carried out and published that show high cycle rates are totally inaccurate, I have pointed these out to prof in the past he just poo poos them and says I do not know how to read studies.
There are also a studies based on the infectivity of asymptomatic COVID carriers found by positive PCR testing, less than 10% were actually able to infect people. There is an early Chinese one which various "Fact Checkers" have tried to debunk, but the conclusion still stand. Here is a meta analysis of those studies.
A while back the WHO was forced to clarify that PCR tests should be carried out to the kit manufacturers instructions, ie not to the Corman/Dorsten protocol.
Much more recently the US CDC has changed it's PRC test protocol for Vaccinated people (but not unvaccinated people??) to a maximum of 28 cycles, they don't want false positives pushing up the numbers that get COVID after a Vaccine, they have enough of them anyway. Despite what was said by others here is the video of Fauci himself saying that tests with over 35 cycles are worthless
But the PCR can be the Gold Standard of fast testing provided the cycles are kept below 28. Cue prof to say it is a conspiracy theory or these people are clueless, or lying or something as he did when I first started posting on the subject.
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:35 - May 23 by A_Fans_Dad
Jack123 do not apologise for asking questions, in this case you are in very good company, because many of Prof's fellow scientists have been and still are asking much harder questions. In fact they have categorically stated that as designed and approved by the WHO the PCR test with up to 45 cycles is totally useless for mass testing for COVID and making policy decisions based on it.
Bearing in mind that this is not me, it is not conspiracy theorists saying this, it is his fellow scientist, who based on past experience he will viciously attack when they disagree with him.
We have discussd this before on other posts, but here iaresome updates.
Currently there is another court case going on in Maritoba county in Canada, their chief microbioligist and Laboratory Specialist Dr. Jared Bullard, the Justice Centre’s expert medical witnesses, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, world-famous epidemiologist and Professor of Medicine from Stanford University and Dr. Thomas Warren, infectious disease specialist and medical microbiologist all agree that the test as designed and authorised by the WHO is not fit for purpose. In fact Dr, Bullard stated that it was ony 44% accurate for predicting Viral growth in a lab, which is the Gold Standard laboratory test.
Studies have been carried out and published that show high cycle rates are totally inaccurate, I have pointed these out to prof in the past he just poo poos them and says I do not know how to read studies.
There are also a studies based on the infectivity of asymptomatic COVID carriers found by positive PCR testing, less than 10% were actually able to infect people. There is an early Chinese one which various "Fact Checkers" have tried to debunk, but the conclusion still stand. Here is a meta analysis of those studies.
A while back the WHO was forced to clarify that PCR tests should be carried out to the kit manufacturers instructions, ie not to the Corman/Dorsten protocol.
Much more recently the US CDC has changed it's PRC test protocol for Vaccinated people (but not unvaccinated people??) to a maximum of 28 cycles, they don't want false positives pushing up the numbers that get COVID after a Vaccine, they have enough of them anyway. Despite what was said by others here is the video of Fauci himself saying that tests with over 35 cycles are worthless
But the PCR can be the Gold Standard of fast testing provided the cycles are kept below 28. Cue prof to say it is a conspiracy theory or these people are clueless, or lying or something as he did when I first started posting on the subject.
I know, the last thing on my mind would ever be upset someone over their covid stance..
And I do appreciate Profs input.. Same as anyone else, how you are currently feeling, like they say it's good to talk.
libera nos a malo
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 09:38 - May 24 with 1534 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:43 - May 23 by raynor94
Just when you think it's safe to come on here
I'm not replying. I don't have the time to counter 'fackwittery' for each and every post dug up by hours searching to find the contrary argument. Even though the need for greater than 40 PCR cycles has been explained and the links to the validation by PHE posted multiple times.
Just take care and get vaccinated-or this drags on and on.
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 10:37 - May 24 with 1528 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 09:38 - May 24 by Professor
I'm not replying. I don't have the time to counter 'fackwittery' for each and every post dug up by hours searching to find the contrary argument. Even though the need for greater than 40 PCR cycles has been explained and the links to the validation by PHE posted multiple times.
Just take care and get vaccinated-or this drags on and on.
So contradicting your idol Dr Fauci then. He is now a "fackwitter" and conspiracy promoter. Good it is time you called him out.
-1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 10:45 - May 24 with 1524 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 10:40 - May 24 by A_Fans_Dad
So contradicting your idol Dr Fauci then. He is now a "fackwitter" and conspiracy promoter. Good it is time you called him out.
You truly are a pernicious little man.
Fauci is a good scientist, but no idol of mine. I have respect and admiration for many scientists but the closest to an idol would be Maurice Wilkins, who I had the pleasure of knowing and was taught by and Stan Falkow, who I only met briefly but corresponded with and was full of help, encouragement and support as a young scientist. Both sadly no longer with us.
They would denounce a snakey fackwit too.
1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:04 - May 24 with 1519 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 10:37 - May 24 by A_Fans_Dad
Simple used under 28 cycles as the CDC protocol now stipulates for Vaccinated people, as the scientists suggested and as the studies show is correct.
That simple then. Thank you for that. If only we had asked you before then this wouldn't have happened and 150,000 Britih people wouldn't have fallen o this overrated virus.
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 11:04 - May 24 by onehunglow
That simple then. Thank you for that. If only we had asked you before then this wouldn't have happened and 150,000 Britih people wouldn't have fallen o this overrated virus.
Now then,what do we do now Chief.
What about our Future in Space
Sorry, you seem to have forgotten, it is not me saying any of that, it is profs fellow scientists, lab technicians and doctors. I don't think they know much about our future in space, but you can ask them if you want.
1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:48 - May 24 with 1471 views
I see there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan. The left wing media are starting to take this seriously and even Fauci admitted that this was possible.
Yet over the past year, anyone who put forward this theory and attempted to back this theory up with facts to make an argument was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist and censored.
It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Fauci knew that this was a possibility at the outset, he was best placed to know it was possible/likely, and yet did not make this known to the Trump administration.
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 19:08 - May 26 with 1382 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:43 - May 26 by Ajack_Kerouac
I see there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan. The left wing media are starting to take this seriously and even Fauci admitted that this was possible.
Yet over the past year, anyone who put forward this theory and attempted to back this theory up with facts to make an argument was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist and censored.
It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Fauci knew that this was a possibility at the outset, he was best placed to know it was possible/likely, and yet did not make this known to the Trump administration.
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:43 - May 26 by Ajack_Kerouac
I see there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan. The left wing media are starting to take this seriously and even Fauci admitted that this was possible.
Yet over the past year, anyone who put forward this theory and attempted to back this theory up with facts to make an argument was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist and censored.
It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Fauci knew that this was a possibility at the outset, he was best placed to know it was possible/likely, and yet did not make this known to the Trump administration.
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 08:24 - May 27 with 1316 views
“Mr Biden's statement came as CNN reported that the president's administration this spring shut down a state department investigation into whether the virus could have leaked from a Wuhan lab, deeming the probe an ineffective use of resources.
The laboratory leak allegations were widely dismissed last year as a fringe conspiracy theory, after then-President Donald Trump said Covid-19 had originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Many US media outlets described such claims as debunked or false. In March this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a report written jointly with Chinese scientists on the origins of Covid-19, saying the chances of it having started in a lab were "extremely unlikely". The WHO acknowledged further study was needed. But questions have persisted and recent reports attributed to US intelligence sources say three members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology were admitted to hospital in November 2019, several weeks before China acknowledged the first case of the new disease in the community.
Anthony Fauci, President Biden's chief medical adviser, has maintained he believes the virus was passed from animals to humans, though he conceded this month he was no longer confident Covid-19 had developed naturally.“
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:19 - May 27 with 1287 views
He needs his tame Security services to come up with a report that exonerates Fauci and the NIH. They are very good at generating such reports as they have a lot of practice, like the Trump Russia, Russia report that even the press have finally admitted was was junk.
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:35 - May 27 with 1250 views
I had my 2nd Jab today, feeling great now, looking forward to hopefully more freedom now, I recommend everyone to have it, adverse reactions are rare. the reward outweighs the risk for me.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
