Is the COVID diagnostic test the worst test ever devised

So, just how reliable and/or accurate is this PCR test???
Do we actually have this edition of Covid SARS-2, or is it really just the common cold, an adenovirus?
How much of the virus is present?
Should ANYONE without symptoms get the PCR test?

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.

blog.nomorefakenews.com...

And read this story further on in the article:

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”
“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications."
[...]
“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

Are we being conned as to the awfulness and severity of this plandemic?????

that and....is it really able to detect a real yes or no test result....I remember at first it was not really even accurate either way

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

PCR wasn't ever intended to be a diagnostic test. The person who created PCR even protested its use for this purpose.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah, that is what I am deriving from the OP source as well.
I mean, what the hell?

I am trying to be open-minded, but I am beginning to think we've been lied to on some level.
Yes, people got sick. Yes, people died. And some continue to get sick and die.
But are the huge number of positives in any way accurate?

What the hell is going on????

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

What the hell is going on????

Deceive-ment, in lack of a better term. Why are they rushing this vaccination so hard, pushing fear so much and dividing people further more, just look at the mask / no-mask mud fights.

My answer: control, fear is a bad counselor, hate is an amplifier for the division we already feel all around us. If politics fails (it does not though) to put valleys between people, it's fear that needs to do the job.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I didn't have to know how they were perpetrating this hoax.
To know from day one there was certainly plenty of avenues
for this hoax to be perpetrated. The sensationalizing in the media
was a dead give away. Argued with some of the best on here.
Now the point of eating some crow just keeps creep'n closer
everyday. This hoax is almost undeniable right now. Despite the
obvious efforts of Google Facebook and You tube to censor all
alternative information. POS>

Stay healthy don't get diagnosed.

a reply to: ketsuko

Same guy who said that AIDS is not caused by HIV?

Can you provide a source to him saying that PCR testing is not valid for diagnostics?

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

PCR is very, very good at what it does. What it does is amplify viral fragments in a sample to detect their presence, but those viral particles don't have to be whole to the point where they're even considered "living" and active so much as viruses are living. They only have to be present in small shreds to be detectable and recognizable as the virus in question.

So if you only have fragments of the virus, you can still show up as a positive test. Having only fragments means you wouldn't have an active disease process.

Add to that that they cycle the process in the test that replicates the viral fragments for detection. Typically, they have a set number of times they run it. If they run it more cycles, then anything they find out of that would be too few viral particles present to make a person ill. They actually do run that test into that number of cycles at most diagnostic centers.

a reply to: ketsuko

If they run it more cycles, then anything they find out of that would be too few viral particles present to make a person ill.

Incorrect. The test does not indicate viral load, high or low.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Is the COVID diagnostic test the worst test ever devised

For some it is the worst, others it is the best.

Yes, people got sick. Yes, people died. And some continue to get sick and die.

I have yet to find evidence that a significantly larger number of people have gotten sick or died from cold viruses this year than in the past.

Bad cold and flu viruses hit about every four years it seems.

They are keeping really good stats on this one. Much better than in the past.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

What sort of evidence have you looked for?

source

a reply to: Phage



That graph shows the damage done from the lockdowns and other measures. Not a new cold virus.

a reply to: Phage

That's not what I said.

I said they run the test through so many cycles that someone with even a very low viral load, so low that there would be no active disease process, would show up as positive.

You are correct that it does not indicate low or high. Hence, everyone with a positive test is treated as if they are ill whether they are or not.

The other issue that it will indicate positive even with just fragments of virus meaning the person in question may actually not be ill because they've already beaten the disease, but they'd be treated as if ill anyhow because it can't distinguish between fragments and whole virus. It only recognizes viral RNA.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

www.nytimes.com...

The PCR test is too accurate that's the problem , it's reading dead residuals of Corona Virus and calling them positive for Covid-19.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

The PCR test is too accurate that's the problem

It could be a feature and not a bug.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Phage

It only recognizes viral RNA.

It may not even be that specific.

The sequence it identifies is only ~1% of the total sequence for The Virus.

It may not even be exclusive to viruses in general, much less a specific virus.

Not a doctor here, of course, but the numbers are right there for anyone to look at. And, it would go a very long way in explaining many of the testing "errors" that have been brought to light. They may not be errors at all, just the test working as intended and identifying a genetic sequence that is prevalent everywhere.

DontTreadOnMe

Yes. And they didn’t even go through the regular already-crappy approval process; they were rushed through. They say “for experimental use only” on each test.

I was watching a crime show last night and they were using pcr testing because it could test materials 10 years old.
Hyper sensitive.

a reply to: ketsuko

You are correct that it does not indicate low or high. Hence, everyone with a positive test is treated as if they are ill whether they are or not.

Not everyone who is infected is "ill", this is true. Many people are asymptomatic.

The other issue that it will indicate positive even with just fragments of virus meaning the person in question may actually not be ill because they've already beaten the disease, but they'd be treated as if ill anyhow because it can't distinguish between fragments and whole virus.

Yes, viral fragments can persist for a while after recovery.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

The PCR test is too accurate that's the problem , it's reading dead residuals of Corona Virus and calling them positive for Covid-19.

That is not exactly what the point of that article is, it says nothing about "dead residuals." The point is that it provides a positive result for someone who may not be contagious. This could occur if testing happens very early in the infection, or while the infection is declining.

Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it — even if the tests are less sensitive.

“It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the superspreaders,” Dr. Mina said. “That alone would drive epidemics practically to zero.”