How things are changing in the Covid testing in the US

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

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

I can speak of the New Zealand experience, because I live here, and there was a decision quite early on to not use antibody testing in any clinical capacity.

As previously mentioned, one may have an active infection, without antibodies. This means that in clinical situations, even in optimal scenarios, the detection of a positive can come too late.

PCR, despite its cost, complexity, and the time it takes to complete, is still an indicator of the presence of the actual virus, and likely to give a positive even in quarantined cases with no symptoms or antibody response. So for the purposes of managing quarantine and lockdown decisions, it made sense.

In hindsight, in New Zealand we did begin releasing people from quarantine two weeks after they returned an all clear, and we then found they still had the virus in later flare-ups. It is thought that this may have been because the virus had moved into other organs and we were still testing using nasal swabs.

So, the testing was extended to blood tests (I think) as well as swabs, and the delay in release from quarantine was extended to ensure there were no late flare-ups.

Perhaps if we had been doing antibody tests as well, we wouldn't have made the mistake of releasing people who didn't have a strong enough immune response to really be 'over' the virus?

"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?

There were a number of studies that indicated a reduction of antibodies after initial vaccination.

I think that one study suggested a 25% reduction in as little as 65 days, and the vaccine companies were expecting to see vaccine effectiveness to roll off over time, but these studies were somewhat of a shock to the system.

This was also in known strains, and didn't even include the added uncertainty of the known mutability of the virus, which is still a grey area because we don't know if we will have to keep tweaking the mix all the time. At least with an mRNA vaccine a tweak to the code is easy and quicker than the approvals.



So they began looking at the timeline of the vaccination - to peak immune response - to roll-off, and realized that a further boost after the peak (at about 28 days) left a longer lasting result.

What they were afraid of, was that the second shot might give a greater immune response and begin to trigger extreme effects like cytokine storm. Fortunately, they found that the immune response from the boost did not 'go over the top', although they did note more obvious immune reaction in most cases.

Because the mRNA solution can be re-coded fairly rapidly, all they need to do is to continue to map the sequence of any new variant and copy the new sequence segment into a new vaccine prototype, to kick off the next round of paperwork.

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?

The fact that the immune response of someone already with antibodies wasn't too bad meant that they were no longer afraid of giving the vaccine to those who already had an immune response.

And sorting out who has antibodies, and who doesn't, would just put a level of complexity into the mix where mistakes could easily be made.

In New Zealand, due to the possibility of mix-ups and Murphy's Law, they made an early decision to only use the vaccine from Pfizer. I still think that was the right decision, even though a bit monopolistic. At the time, it looked like it was the most effective of the offerings and now after several other technologies have had questions raised over possible adverse reactions, I think we also have been lucky in our choice.

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.

Thanks.

I really think that the way we have handled this pandemic is a watershed moment in human history and despite the tragedy, we have learned so much in such a short time that things will never be the same again.

Rather than doom porn, it's like welcome to the new future where we aren't all killed off again by some accident of nature.

Hopefully, we'll get on top of other human diseases too. Like cancer and diabetes.

Anyway, I'm hopeful...

www.dailyveracity.com...

Parents Speak Out About Their Children Dying from the Vaccines
As vaccinations in the young ramp up, thousands of families – banned from sharing their stories on most social media platforms – are speaking out on alternative outlets.

The Parents of Benjamin Goodman, 32, spoke out recently about the death of their son caused by the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. This is just one family out of countless families across the country who have lost their child or other loved ones due to severe reactions from the COVID-19 vaccines.

This comes at a time when the advisory panel of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) held an emergency meeting on June 18 to discuss reports of heart inflammation after doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

www.thegatewaypundit.com... -price-video/

Sen. Ron Johnson on VAERS System, Vaccine Deaths and YouTube Censorship: “They’re Suppressing the information and American People are Paying the Price” (VIDEO)

originally posted by: rickymouse
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.

No argument there...

If they would have kept it at around thirty five, at least there would not be so many false positives they blamed deaths on.

No, but there still would have been way too many.

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.

Again, no argument from me...

originally posted by: chr0naut
I really think that the way we have handled this pandemic is a watershed moment in human history and despite the tragedy, we have learned so much in such a short time that things will never be the same again.

Rather than doom porn, it's like welcome to the new future where we aren't all killed off again by some accident of nature.

So.... you speak about these vaccines as if you were intimately involved in not only their production, but in all of the R&D as well.

Which could be true... or... you could be so full of BS that it is coming out of your fingertips. I'll ass-u-me the latter unless/until you can prove otherwise.

The reason I'm ass-u-me-ing the latter is because your speak as though this virus was anything other than what it is - not even problematic, let alone deadly, for the vast majority of, like, everyone, and even those at most risk, if you factor in the cheap safe and effective therapeutics available.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
I really think that the way we have handled this pandemic is a watershed moment in human history and despite the tragedy, we have learned so much in such a short time that things will never be the same again.

Rather than doom porn, it's like welcome to the new future where we aren't all killed off again by some accident of nature.

So.... you speak about these vaccines as if you were intimately involved in not only their production, but in all of the R&D as well.

Which could be true... or... you could be so full of BS that it is coming out of your fingertips. I'll ass-u-me the latter unless/until you can prove otherwise.

The reason I'm ass-u-me-ing the latter is because your speak as though this virus was anything other than what it is - not even problematic, let alone deadly, for the vast majority of, like, everyone, and even those at most risk, if you factor in the cheap safe and effective therapeutics available.

I am not involved in the creation of any of the vaccines. Just an interested observer, and I have been vaccinated, so, perhaps, participant?

The virus kills some people. That's a fact. In the USA, with all the money and tech, the case fatality ratio is currently 1.79%. Of course, that's less than two people out of every hundred.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I am not involved in the creation of any of the vaccines. Just an interested observer, and I have been vaccinated, so, perhaps, participant?

Which means you're talking out of your backside.

The virus kills some people. That's a fact. In the USA, with all the money and tech, the case fatality ratio is currently 1.79%. Of course, that's less than two people out of every hundred.

That is a FAKE CFR, because the WHO and the american medical mafia has been proactively censuring anyone and everything when it comes to the safe, inexpensive and extremely effective therapeutics available - all in pursuit of power.

They are guilty of crimes against humanity.

originally posted by: drewlander
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.

The thing is that if it is giving kids these effects, it definitely is giving more people over fifty these effects too. By making people believe it does not effect people with these heart conditions by the wording they use, they are actually tricking people to falsely believe it is only the young that are effected. The Pharma companies and those regulating agencies hire some pretty good people to hide things, I bet a person great at twisting things would make a great salary working for them.

Sadly, elderly are getting the covid and filling hospitals even with the shot, today at my zumba class an elderly lady in her 70s was complaining that since she took the shot, she have severe fatigue, I know this fatigue is one of the side effects, but she have it since she got the shot back in January and she said is getting worst.

Pharma can not be sue for any side effects until the year 2024, if their protection is not extended, by then the number of dead, maimed and with long term complications for life will be know as law sues are filled.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
I am not involved in the creation of any of the vaccines. Just an interested observer, and I have been vaccinated, so, perhaps, participant?

Which means you're talking out of your backside.

No. Why would I be lying?

I am just responding to the topic thread, and expressing my reasoning, based upon what I know. Some of my knowledge comes from outside the particular topic entirely because I have an academic and science background.

The virus kills some people. That's a fact. In the USA, with all the money and tech, the case fatality ratio is currently 1.79%. Of course, that's less than two people out of every hundred.

That is a FAKE CFR, because the WHO and the american medical mafia has been proactively censuring anyone and everything when it comes to the safe, inexpensive and extremely effective therapeutics available - all in pursuit of power.

They are guilty of crimes against humanity.

Honestly, where would you be getting your alternate statistics from if you don't accept the WHO, the CDC, the FDA, or "the American medical mafia" (is there even such a thing?), or similar authorities across the world?

And tell me, how would an administrative organization like the WHO get any more power by giving out false data? If I recall, the last time someone even just accused them, they lost massive funding.

Even your reasoning as to the supposed motive for all this doesn't stand up to analysis.

Face it, you are just peddling baseless doom-porn.

originally posted by: chr0naut
No. Why would I be lying?

Ego? Ignorance?

All I know is, you're talking about these jabs as if you know far, far more than you apparently think you do.

Honestly, where would you be getting your alternate statistics from if you don't accept the WHO, the CDC, the FDA, or "the American medical mafia" (is there even such a thing?), or similar authorities across the world?

If you don't understand that there is a medical mafia, how can I expect you to discuss it intelligently?

Face it, you are just peddling baseless doom-porn.

No, you're the one peddling something... but I'm not sure what I'd call it...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
No. Why would I be lying?

Ego? Ignorance?

I'm as human as the next person.

But does that mean I am lying? Can you see that assuming that someone is lying just because you believe your opinion is right, and not based in hard evidence, is equally as baseless an assumption, and motivated by the same things, exactly.

All I know is, you're talking about these jabs as if you know far, far more than you apparently think you do.

In a couple of previous posts, I was commenting on some published papers, that others have had questions about. I was just explaining what the paper said, in what I thought were simpler, and less jargon filled, terms. I have to read a lot of scientific papers, and you sort of get a rhythm going.

I also speak regularly to people whose expertise is specifically in the topics that are under question. They often have understandings of things entirely at odds with the media stories and doom-porn.

And then there is the issue of the cognitive dissonance of believing that something simultaneously doesn't exist, but yet is also somehow a weapon to bring an end to stable society? Or that it is destroying us, when clearly we are not destroyed, and are getting on with life as we are accustomed.

Honestly, where would you be getting your alternate statistics from if you don't accept the WHO, the CDC, the FDA, or "the American medical mafia" (is there even such a thing?), or similar authorities across the world?

If you don't understand that there is a medical mafia, how can I expect you to discuss it intelligently?

If you cannot explain why you believe that there is a "medical mafia" in rational, clear, and evidential terms, then of course you can't discuss it intelligently.

Face it, you are just peddling baseless doom-porn.

No, you're the one peddling something... but I'm not sure what I'd call it...

Where do you get your data from that leads you to believe that so many credible authorities are giving out false data? It's a simple enough question.

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

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

www.fda.gov...

That's interesting... the exact same message was just given in Denmark by our Health Department. Only, they are recommending that we only get PCR, not the quick test...
So it was fine for 6 months, but now it's trash? What's going on....

originally posted by: flice

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

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

www.fda.gov...

That's interesting... the exact same message was just given in Denmark by our Health Department. Only, they are recommending that we only get PCR, not the quick test...
So it was fine for 6 months, but now it's trash? What's going on....

Because incorrect assumptions were made about what they were telling us, and they are more error prone than other methodologies, and it was safer to use a direct detection of the viral genomics as evidence of the presence of the virus.

Additionally, it may have been because PCR is so specific and antigens are more general. I suppose that there was a concern that the virus could mutate and still retain its nasty traits, without looking the same to PCR and therefore automated testing might not see it at all. But now we are looking for the genomic basis for those traits, there is less chance of that happening.

a reply to: summer5

What's going on?

We are in about month 18 of a planned event that is biological warfare (and psychological warfare), PLANDEMIC.

Good luck to your daughter.

originally posted by: summer5
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.

Didn't you get the memo?

95+% of people dying from COVID are unvaxxed.

That is the new narrative.