CDC to Replace Its PCR Test With One That Can Differentiate Between CCP Virus and Flu

a reply to: nonspecific

To be honest, I've never seen an accuracy number presented, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't. I have, however, heard many reports of them being either inaccurate, or, as has been noted on ATS in many threads, used in such a way that really doesn't even prove an active, communicable SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The fact that there is some much admitted inaccuracy and a seeming lack of records that proves when inaccuracies did occur tells me that all of the COVID-19 cases recorded in stats that used this testing method should be separated from accurate counts and reported separately, or removed altogether. It's simply not scientific to include those numbers anymore.

I'm not sure I agree with that as there's so much disinformation about PCR testing out there it's quite hard to seperate the truth from the lies, I'd certainly discount most of what is said here on ATS as most of the negative information is incorrect.

Unless you have an actual understanding of how the tests both work and are used then talking about CT cycles and false positives is just grabbing onto buzz words and repeating them like it means something.

PCR is used as an indicator and to follow the spread and effects of covid alongside other diagnostics and is good for what it does.

If governments use that data incorrectly then that's a fault with the government not the tests.

If people who are skeptical of the reality of covid use the tests as "evidence" then that's also nothing to do with the tests themselves no matter how many times people say the same old things about CT cycles or whatever else they read and didn't really understand.



a reply to: SlapMonkey

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: PeteMitchell

It's good to see that some places are doing this, but I know for a fact from quite a few nurses and medical professionals that I know that this is not the case everywhere.

Maybe it's not as widespread as I am assuming based on their reports, but my point stands that there's nothing forcing many of these places to perform other tests if a PCR returns a negative result for COVID--or, if there is, there are a lot of places ignoring it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: nonspecific

The problem is not the flu was diagnosed as covid, the problem was people could have had both, and the flu was the cause of their symptoms, and they did not get the proper treatment. That is why my hospital long ago moved to a quad assay.

so do you believe that the flu has been eradicated from the earth in a year due to masking and social distancing, as experts have claimed, or did a whole bunch of people get mis-identified as Covid rather than flu? (it can't be both ways)

It can be a bit of both though.

That would be my guess.





a reply to: network dude

a reply to: nonspecific

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that PCR results alone should not be used as a means to verify if someone is infected? I mean when they are used as the sole test to determine it? Or are you saying that it, along with an assessment of symptoms (but not necessarily another type of test), is how they should be used?

To be honest, I didn't even get into the different types of testing until this started coming up, but I do reject your claim that we are just "grabbing onto buzz words" when we talk about it. There are a TON of sites out there that explain CT cycles and how the PCR test versus an antigen test works that make it easy to understand--easy enough for the discussion to be deeper than just 'repeating things like it means something.'

I think that a big problem lies in the reality that this PCR testing has been seen as the "gold standard of COVID testing" for a long time, and now we are being shown that there are big questions surrounding its accuracy and, quite honestly, usability for accurate results (and by extension, accurate data points). So much so, in fact, that the CDC has willingly withdrawn the EUA for the testing.

If you are going to continue to say things like it's the government or skeptical people's fault for using the data incorrectly and not the tests themselves, I will have to disagree, as it's being proven directly and indirectly that the lack of accuracy lies within the PCR tests themselves, which is the "gold standard" type of testing for COVID (according to Harvard Health Publishing). I do agree that we should stop using the results of these tests in our overall statistics, though, and should separate them as a separate set of stats since they seem to be much less reliable.

But I'm not going to lie--I'm burned out on talking about COVID-19 issues for today, so if you respond, I'll probably continue the discussion tomorrow. Best regards.

I'm also about out if steam with this.

In preparation for tommorow bear in mind that the current PCR tests are apparently being phased out in favour of different PCR tests not a different format of testing.

I'll also ask you this.

If a cycle threshold is in question then how can we discuss the number of cycles being used to reach a certain threshold but not talk about the level at which the threshold is set to?

Are we not only using half the data to try and make a decision?


a reply to: SlapMonkey

a reply to: network dude

They can't be misidentified as Covid as they would be negative for Covid when tested if they did not have Covid. The flu is not covid, it actually does get blocked by face masks. I think there is a combination of several things. Measures against covid did have a significant impact on the flu, and anyone who had covid for a long time was not tested for the flu, so anyone who got both would only be tested for covid after they came up positive.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: nonspecific

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that PCR results alone should not be used as a means to verify if someone is infected? I mean when they are used as the sole test to determine it? Or are you saying that it, along with an assessment of symptoms (but not necessarily another type of test), is how they should be used?

To be honest, I didn't even get into the different types of testing until this started coming up, but I do reject your claim that we are just "grabbing onto buzz words" when we talk about it. There are a TON of sites out there that explain CT cycles and how the PCR test versus an antigen test works that make it easy to understand--easy enough for the discussion to be deeper than just 'repeating things like it means something.'

I think that a big problem lies in the reality that this PCR testing has been seen as the "gold standard of COVID testing" for a long time, and now we are being shown that there are big questions surrounding its accuracy and, quite honestly, usability for accurate results (and by extension, accurate data points). So much so, in fact, that the CDC has willingly withdrawn the EUA for the testing.

If you are going to continue to say things like it's the government or skeptical people's fault for using the data incorrectly and not the tests themselves, I will have to disagree, as it's being proven directly and indirectly that the lack of accuracy lies within the PCR tests themselves, which is the "gold standard" type of testing for COVID (according to Harvard Health Publishing). I do agree that we should stop using the results of these tests in our overall statistics, though, and should separate them as a separate set of stats since they seem to be much less reliable.

But I'm not going to lie--I'm burned out on talking about COVID-19 issues for today, so if you respond, I'll probably continue the discussion tomorrow. Best regards.

Until now, until this…PCR and molecular was the future of lab. Now? I have no idea. We report everything we run as factual as presented and that’s all we can do

a reply to: nonspecific

Most places stopped using them a long time ago.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

An antibody test can't determine infection. You might be infected for weeks before an antibody test will show up, in fact, when the antibody test is positive you are no longer contagious, so the antibody test is useless for infection verification.

The PCR test is used for finding infections, antibody test is used to determine when they are no longer contagious.

If a PCR test comes back positive, and the antibody test is negative, but they had a verified infection more than several months ago then you use things such as symptoms to determine whether they have an active infection vs remnants of their previous infection.

I don't know what websites you refer to, but if they are using an antibody test to determine infection they are absolutely wrong. The PCR test is the gold standard, and for good reason (also not for covid, it's the gold standard for many virus).

If you can explain to me how a test that can take 3 weeks of being infected to yield a positive result should be used I am willing to listen.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: network dude

They can't be misidentified as Covid as they would be negative for Covid when tested if they did not have Covid. The flu is not covid, it actually does get blocked by face masks. I think there is a combination of several things. Measures against covid did have a significant impact on the flu, and anyone who had covid for a long time was not tested for the flu, so anyone who got both would only be tested for covid after they came up positive.

so we beat the flu full stop with masks. T-shirts cut out in the shape of a mask. Whodathunkit.

And just think, if we all mask up every flu season, nobody will ever get sick again. We are an amazing species.

a reply to: network dude

If we shut down our economy, force masks on everyone, stay 6 feet away, use gloves and hand hygiene for everything, then yes, we would have few cases every year. We would also have much larger problems of our own creation.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: network dude

If we shut down our economy, force masks on everyone, stay 6 feet away, use gloves and hand hygiene for everything, then yes, we would have few cases every year. We would also have much larger problems of our own creation.

but we didn't do all that, and what we did do, most half assed it. And *POOF* no mo flu. Like the POELice

insert forrest gump meme saying "and just like that, the flu was gone"

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman
You should read more. The PCR test in question can't detect flu, only covid. That's why it's being stopped in favor of multi assays that can detect the flu as well.

And you are totally (intentionally?) missing the point.

The PCR test in question was being run with absurdly high amplification rates, resulting in an extraordinary number of false positives, resulting in someone with the FLU being diagnosed with COVID19.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Except that's literally impossible. Please explain to me how PCR works and how that can happen.

originally posted by: nonspecific
That's a lateral flow test not PCR.



a reply to: MykeNukem

Point stands.

Don't trust it either.

a reply to: nonspecific

CDC's Flu SC2 test differentiates both COVID and Flu. This was approved for use in Jul2020

"should be ordered for the detection and differentiation of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and/or influenza B viruses in individuals suspected of respiratory viral infection consistent with COVID-19 by a healthcare provider." Currently approved multiplex asseys also differentiate for COVID and Flu

FDA Guidance Document for your reference

Lateral flow tests are not great.

They serve a function of you want to quickly test a large volume of people to establish that there is not an outbreak but they are pretty useless and not worth the time and money in my own personal opinion.



a reply to: MykeNukem

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl
Except that's literally impossible. Please explain to me how PCR works and how that can happen.

Your unilateral declaration that what I posited is impossible suggests either an inability or unwillingness to comprehend a response, because in order to understand that what I am saying is not just possible, but true, you at least must be willing to concede that these PCR tests are capable of being misused, and if/when misused, are not 100% reliable and can and do result in false positives as well as false negatives.

But, I'll try, because there may be others reading that will find this of interest, even if you don't...

First, to restate my claim that you declared was 'impossible':

"The PCR test in question was being run with absurdly high amplification rates, resulting in an extraordinary number of false positives, resulting in someone with the FLU being diagnosed with COVID19."

This fact is due to the nature of how PCR works - amplification of a molecule. If you amplify it enough, you can find, literally, in the words of the inventor himself - anything. Here is an excerpt from a very short clip, less than 2 minutes long - one of the very few records that I could find - of what he actually said in response to the question "How do they misuse PCR to estimate all these supposed free viral RNA's (they were discussing this in relation to the HIV tests). Everything in italics that follows are his exact words that you can hear for yourself:

"I don’t think you can misuse PCR. [It is] the results; the interpretation of it. If they can find this virus in you at all – and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody, it starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else. If you can amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there is just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of in your body. That could be thought of as a misuse: to claim that it is meaningful...

The measurement for it is not exact, at all; it is not as good as the measurement for things like apples...

Those tests are all based on things that are invisible and the results are inferred in a sense. PCR is separate from that, it is just a process that is used that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

It's too bad that he died - in 2019, just before the scamdemic - another thing that might make someone with a suspicious mind go 'hmmm' - before he could clear up this obvious confusion.

So, to recap, the primary way these PCR tests can be misused is by using too high of a cycle threshhold, aka over-amplification. Anything over 35 is considered too high for reliable results and will result in false positives. The higher the amplification level over 35, the more unreliable/error-prone/false positives will be produced. Lastly on this aspect, there are a lot of references that cycles as high as 38, or even 40+ were being used almost everywhere early on in this scamdemic, which would result in a whole lot of false positives for COVID19.

In conclusion, and with all of that in mind:

ifSomeone has some symptoms and gets tested, the test was reported as 'positive' for COVID but it turned out to be a false positive because they used a cycle threshhold higher than 35, and they were not tested for the flu, it logically follows that it is entirely possible they had the flu, and not COVID19.

Oh, and in case anyone has heard about and chooses to use the fact that he was an 'AIDS denier' (did not believe or was not convinced that HIV causes AIDS) as an excuse to ignore anything he says, here is another interesting clip I found while doing your homework for you is one where he (and others) discusses his reason for this belief. He is the first one being interviewed, and his part in the clip is less than 6 minutes long: