How things are changing in the Covid testing in the US

These test aren't adding up. Not that they ever did with perfectly healthy people testing positive all through last year, but now sick people are testing negative even with consecutive tests while having symptoms.

One of my daughters wasn't feeling well for a couple of weeks starting mid May. Several of her coworkers had been sick and were testing negative for the "virus" at first. Eventually, after several tests they tested positive. My daughter started to feel ill. She felt and sounded terrible. Her cough was bad and she had aches all over and a headache. She said it hurt to cough and that she was getting winded walking up her stairs. She tested negative 2x the first week of not feeling well. The second week she took her 3rd test which did test positive. She kept testing because she had her wedding fast approaching with elderly relatives attending and didn't want to get them sick. For the record she's not had the jab. Some of her coworkers that were sick did not have it either, but 2 of the sick older ladies had both been fully vaccinated.

I have another daughter who lives in another state. She and my 5 year old grandson both became very sick starting two weeks ago. They had the same painful cough, very tired and body aches. This daughter did two separate tests, a week apart, that both came out negative. Both daughters lost their sense of taste and smell.

This morning I spoke to two of my employers. One I've mentioned in a couple other posts on the boards here. She had 2 jabs (the second back in February)and has suffered UTI's (she's just been diagnosed with her second UTI) A condition she hasn't had since she was a kid… now in her 60s. She's also been suffering severe back pain since February and has been treated with pain killers, muscle relaxers and steroids. Nothing has changed. She had scans done a couple weeks back that show her liver and spleen are now enlarged. Her white count had suddenly become dangerously low. Not a word that the jab had any connection to her symptoms of a once very active woman prior to the jabs.

Back to the tests. Her older sister (mid 60s) also vaccinated at the start of the year sounds like complete crap today. She has a cough from hell and isn't feeling well. I told her she sounded like she had the covid cough. She informed me she's been to the Dr and since she's had the shots they weren't going to bother testing her because she's protected. What? Seriously?!

Meanwhile she's out and about because she's had the jab and her Dr isn't concerned it's covid because she had the shots. Meanwhile, she's out and about as if she's fine.

WTF is going on? All of a sudden people who are now getting sick are testing negative for several tests. And those who are sick aren't even getting tested? Yet last year perfectly healthy people with zero symptoms were "positive" and quarantined.

This world is so backwards and upside down.

They dialed back the repetitions to twenty eight now which is too low, it was at forty two which made it way too sensitive and gave false positives a quarter of the time. I think they should have dropped it down to thirty six repetitions. But they wanted to make these vaccines appear like they are working and a lot of people will get sick and die because of their deceit to make their vaccination program look good. I have no faith in those running the medical industry anymore, I do think there are lots of good doctors out there yet, but also a lot who will parrot things to make sure they keep their license and can pay their employees.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, this is what I know of it, but is there any truth that the CDC had or is having an emergency meeting on the vax causing serious problems with people? I know a girl doing vaers coding and she will not let anyone in her family get a vax seeing all the heart problems alone that teenagers are having but should not experience until their 50s. It seems like the CDC did a head-fake. Two more weeks.

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: rickymouse

is there any truth that the CDC had or is having an emergency meeting on the vax causing serious problems with people? I know a girl doing vaers coding and she will not let anyone in her family get a vax seeing all the heart problems alone that teenagers are having but should not experience until their 50s. It seems like the CDC did a head-fake. Two more weeks.

yes there is truth to it as even the MSM has been reporting on this for 9+ days now...

CDC panel to hold emergency meeting on heart inflammation cases linked to COVID-19 vaccine

a reply to: FamCore

I dont buy it is only .0004% they would not call an emergency meeting over that

a reply to: FamCore

I dont buy it is only .0004% they would not call an emergency meeting over that

a reply to: summer5

Covid-19 testing now seems to be delivering accurate results.

People who are contracting other illnesses which would have been covid-19 last year, are baffled over how they can test negative and still feel sick.

In reality they have the flu or a bad cold.

Covid-19 positive results will begin ramping back up again as we near School reopening.

A huge goal is to get tens of millions of our little children injected with the experimental drugs.

a reply to: summer5

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a novel virus, meaning our immune systems don't immediately recognize it when we are infected with it.

There are two types of test.

A PCR test for the viral genomic sequence, and antibody tests, that show we have had an immune response to the virus.

The PCR test is considered the gold standard of tests because it is quite reliable, and is specifically looking for the virus. But you can have genuinely had the virus, but gotten over it, and a PCR test will return a negative result because the virus itself is no longer in your system. Also sometimes even PCR tests can return false negatives and false positives, especially if the sample becomes contaminated, or procedures are not followed perfectly.

Antibody tests show your immune response to the virus, but because it is a novel virus, you can have the virus and be sick, but not have an immune response (yet). Also, after you have gotten over the virus, antibody tests will still show that you have the antibodies to fight the virus. So antibody tests have their place, but aren't that useful in a clinical situation. Antibody tests also usually have more false positives and more false negatives than PCR tests.

In the USA, antibody tests are cheaper and more available. In other countries, antibody tests are not used in clinical situations.

originally posted by: rickymouse
They dialed back the repetitions to twenty eight now which is too low, it was at forty two which made it way too sensitive and gave false positives a quarter of the time. I think they should have dropped it down to thirty six repetitions. But they wanted to make these vaccines appear like they are working and a lot of people will get sick and die because of their deceit to make their vaccination program look good. I have no faith in those running the medical industry anymore, I do think there are lots of good doctors out there yet, but also a lot who will parrot things to make sure they keep their license and can pay their employees.

The recommendation for PCR amplifications was always, (from memory) 35. Not all labs followed the recommendations because they 'wanted' the results, which probably led to some false readings early on. Additionally, doing more amplifications takes more time, and a rapid result is often required.

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: rickymouse
I know a girl doing vaers coding and she will not let anyone in her family get a vax seeing all the heart problems alone that teenagers are having but should not experience until their 50s.

Eh??? Those heart problems are not 'normal' for people over 50... only for people who are extremely unhealthy...

originally posted by: rickymouse
They dialed back the repetitions to twenty eight now which is too low,

Too low?! That is actually in line with what it should be set at, but that test still was never and is not intended as diagnostic test, it is way too error-prone - you can test positive if you were exposed to any of the coronavirus', even the one that causes the common cold.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: summer5
The PCR test is considered the gold standard of tests because it is quite reliable, and is specifically looking for the virus.

BS. According to its own inventor, it was never and is not inteded to be used as a diagnostic tool, and is very prone to false positives because it can show a positive test for any of the family of coronavirus'...

a reply to: summer5

This whole damn fiasco is about to go raped ape.

a reply to: tanstaafl

BS.

Agreed. I think the "gold" standard is actually the "iron pyrite" standard.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rickymouse
They dialed back the repetitions to twenty eight now which is too low,

Too low?! That is actually in line with what it should be set at, but that test still was never and is not intended as diagnostic test, it is way too error-prone - you can test positive if you were exposed to any of the coronavirus', even the one that causes the common cold.

The fact that they used the test with too many repetitions to make this virus look more deadly than it is causes it to be a big medical scam. If they would have kept it at around thirty five, at least there would not be so many false positives they blamed deaths on. That test is supposed to be used in association with symptoms of covid....not just symptoms of a cold or a sinus infection. So there were lots of deaths labeled covid deaths here in America that were labeled inappropriately.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Yes, that may be a better way to state it. And there are many other unusual problems but this heart stuff is what they seem to want to cover up the most.

Re: famcore, know the media has been talking about it. Thats the thing though, much like everything else the media talks about I hardly ever see any action.

a reply to: chr0naut

Antibody tests are no longer recommended to establish immunity or protection.

www.fda.gov...

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rickymouse
They dialed back the repetitions to twenty eight now which is too low, it was at forty two which made it way too sensitive and gave false positives a quarter of the time. I think they should have dropped it down to thirty six repetitions. But they wanted to make these vaccines appear like they are working and a lot of people will get sick and die because of their deceit to make their vaccination program look good. I have no faith in those running the medical industry anymore, I do think there are lots of good doctors out there yet, but also a lot who will parrot things to make sure they keep their license and can pay their employees.

The recommendation for PCR amplifications was always, (from memory) 35. Not all labs followed the recommendations because they 'wanted' the results, which probably led to some false readings early on. Additionally, doing more amplifications takes more time, and a rapid result is often required.

I have just checked on the PCR FDA recommended procedures here (.pdf) and although it leaves the number of times of amplification open ended, there is a direction that amplification must fall within the exponential PCR phase, and as outlined on pages 33 & 34, this is usually around 35 cycles. (I recall that there used to be a note about diminishing returns on higher cycle numbers, but this appears to no longer be in the procedural document, probably to accommodate new technologies that have come into use since the document was first written up).

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

Antibody tests are no longer recommended to establish immunity or protection.

www.fda.gov...

They still remain a useful tool, like for when you are trying to establish an outbreak's spread through a community by analyzing antibody concentrations in sewage. In assays like this, the data can be a guide as to where the priority needs to be placed, for example, for PCR testing in a specific community.

a reply to: chr0naut

Antibody tests were the gold standard for a year and a half.

"antibody tests should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination" - prior link

How is antibody production (efficacy beyond reduction of symptoms) being monitored? How is the timeline for required boosters being evaluated? Are decisions being based on real world evidence and observational outcomes; with no quantifiable laboratory metric being used as guidance?

If my memory serves, patients in the original study were excluded if they had a + antibody test. What's changed? Why was it sufficient to assess entry of study participants but no longer sufficient to assess outcomes?

I genuinely appreciate you fielding these questions. Usually, when I pose them I get an emotional, political or somewhat ignorant response. Your thoughts are rational and based in your understanding of the science.