If You Trust The Official Word From Government On Anything You Are A Gullible F**L

I read about this a few days ago but didn't bother to post it here because I am just too frustrated by all of the disinformation coming from official sources, I just mostly let it pass without comment any more.
But I think this is something everyone should know.

WHO Decides PCR Nasal Swab Tests Are Not Sufficient COVID-19 Tests After They Diagnose 24M Americans

Who didn't see this coming?

Link

The CDC has reported over 24.5 million positive COVID-19 cases in the United States since March. This number has been calculated using PCR nose swab tests, which up until Inauguration Day, were considered the gold standard by both the World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control.

However, a new statement released by the World Health Organization suggests a simple positive test result from a nose swab is not enough to confirm a positive case.

That announcement stated, “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

Anybody that still relies on this government for accurate, truthful information needs their head examined.

This 40 cycle protocol, which multiplies samples by 1 trillion times, is currently used by the vast majority of testing outlets and hospitals. However, Doctor Shawn Ferullo from MIT said if your test is truly positive at the 40th cycle, your viral load is “so low that you are not infections and cannot spread the virus to other people.”

a reply to: CharlesT

It's almost as if the virus was politicized. Whodathunkit

BS. Find me a proof of this. Here in Europe, nose swabs are considered a joke.

But yeah. Where did WHO or CDC say nose swabs are gold standard?

a reply to: network dude

Don't you mean, weaponized?

a reply to: CharlesT

If You Trust The Oficial Word From Government On Anything You Are A Gullible F***

To add to this, especially when the internet exists and most of this information has been available for about as long as the pandemic has been going on if you made about two clicks past cnn and co to the studies published openly.

But...reading scientific journals is difficult I suppose and takes time to contemplate and understand, best wait for the talking heads to tell you what to think.

a reply to: CharlesT

Indeed. I'm starting to believe no matter which political side you take you've been lied to. The world is indeed a stage.

a reply to: CharlesT

It’s almost as if science changes when new evidence is discovered.

Whodathunkit

Well, me and most people who have a passing understanding of how science works.

If You Trust The Oficial Word From Government On Anything You Are A Gullible F***

Eh... A lot of people way that but don't follow their own ethos.

a reply to: underwerks

Except...we've known this for a while now

worlddoctorsalliance.com...

a reply to: CharlesT

WHO Decides PCR Nasal Swab Tests Are Not Sufficient COVID-19 Tests After They Diagnose 24M Americans

That's a gross distortion of what the memo actually says. First, it says nothing about "nasal swab tests", specifically. It also says this:

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

www.who.int...

It says only that if a weak result is obtained, it should be followed up when the symptoms don't match the testing. This is not a change. This has been the recommended protocol.

From September:

Careful interpretation of weak positive NAAT results is needed, as some of the assays have shown to produce false signals at high Ct values. When test results turn out to be invalid or questionable, the patient should be resampled and retested. If additional samples from the patient are not available, RNA should be re-extracted from the original samples and retested by highly experienced staff. Results can be confirmed by an alternative NAAT test or via virus sequencing if the viral load is sufficiently high. Laboratories are urged to seek reference laboratory confirmation of any unexpected results.

apps.who.int...

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: underwerks

Except...we've known this for a while now

worlddoctorsalliance.com...

Your source:

This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter, signed by all the main & co-authors.

a reply to: underwerks

But that's never stopped some from using 'science' to impose their political zealotry upon others, while conveniently ignoring the science that contradicts their aims.

Science is not a conclusion, but a methodology.

a reply to: CharlesT

Here's my gauge when determining facts from lies: when FB, twitter and YT bans / deletes it, then we're over the target.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Perhaps you should work on developing your critical thinking skill a bit more.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlesT

WHO Decides PCR Nasal Swab Tests Are Not Sufficient COVID-19 Tests After They Diagnose 24M Americans

That's a gross distortion of what the memo actually says. First, it says nothing about "nasal swab tests", specifically. It also says this:

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

www.who.int...

It says only that if a weak result is obtained, it should be followed up when the symptoms don't match the testing. This is not a change. This has been the recommended protocol.

From September:

Careful interpretation of weak positive NAAT results is needed, as some of the assays have shown to produce false signals at high Ct values. When test results turn out to be invalid or questionable, the patient should be resampled and retested. If additional samples from the patient are not available, RNA should be re-extracted from the original samples and retested by highly experienced staff. Results can be confirmed by an alternative NAAT test or via virus sequencing if the viral load is sufficiently high. Laboratories are urged to seek reference laboratory confirmation of any unexpected results.

apps.who.int...

In other words, the OP is correct. They've been throwing out "positive" diagnosis even when no test has been given just for being around someone with Covid or displaying symptoms.

We've said from the beginning after election they would start reassessing how the tests are done which will lower the case positivity count.

originally posted by: Edumakated
They've been throwing out "positive" diagnosis even when no test has been given just for being around someone with Covid or displaying symptoms.

The Science really hates to be caught by science. For those who know how Science is played against the poorly educated. Not hard to tell why the education system has been so dumbed down. Smart people ask 'hard' questions ... and liars wind up having a tough time keeping their stories straight.

We've said from the beginning after election they would start reassessing how the tests are done which will lower the case positivity count.

Medical Terrorism. Plain and simple.

a reply to: Edumakated

They've been throwing out "positive" diagnosis even when no test has been given just for being around someone with Covid or displaying symptoms.

No. That is not what the memo says.

We've said from the beginning after election they would start reassessing how the tests are done which will lower the case positivity count.

As I pointed out, the protocols were in place well before the election.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Perhaps you should work on developing your critical thinking skill a bit more.

What? and ruin a perfectly good haircut? No way Jose'.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Perhaps you should work on developing your critical thinking skill a bit more.

You meant to type "skills".

Perhaps you should have an origional thought in the first place.

All you do is parrot the establishment narrative like a good little slave.

Here are my thoughts about the subject....

a reply to: dug88

It's worth repeating.