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

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Read it again. Then keep reading it until you understand it. This has been debunked probably 100 times on reddit in the last few days.

You wanna know how I know a story is damaging to the Lefts Agenda .

You LordAhriman run on here and post something to contradict it as soon as you can .

and no this story has not be debunked at all , there is nothing to debunk because it's true no matter how much it offends your delicate sensibilities.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I'm extreme antileft Trump supporting Independent party American. This story is debunked, it's a total nonsense lie. They stopped using the original PCR test because new multi-assay PCR tests are superior. PCR is not being abandoned, it's still the gold standard for Covid testing. I'm an RN who works with covid patients, we use a quad assay PCR test to differentiate flu and covid infections.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Wow. What do you base this new claim that 'they more likely had both' on?

I base it on the fact that the PCR test is validated by an IgG test. If they did not have a covid infection then the IgG test would never come back positive.

Maybe you can explain how all the positive PCR tests eventually return a positive IgG test?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Maybe you can explain how all the positive PCR tests eventually return a positive IgG test?

Maybe you should stop ass-u-me-ing that every single hospital, lab, medical office or whatever does things the exact same way that you apparently do.

To put it another way...

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone - every lab, every doctors office, every hospital - that performs these PCR tests does them the same way, with the same settings, and follows up every PCR test with an antibody test, just because you do?

a reply to: tanstaafl

All we do is follow CDC guidelines, can you provide sources that others aren't?

a reply to: nonspecific

What video?

I'm sorry about that, it was late and I forgot to even add the video.

This one, from 7.20 if you're not interested in the whole thing.

youtu.be...


a reply to: SlapMonkey

That's no different.to you claiming that every PCR test is ran at an absurdly high CT value surely.

There will be protocols right?




a reply to: tanstaafl

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl
All we do is follow CDC guidelines,

If so, then you were using CT cycles far in excess of 35, which makes every PCR test you ever did useless.

can you provide sources that others aren't?

I'm confused why guidelines from the most evil, biased and compromised source in the country, maybe the world, would even be considered by anyone.

Any other source is better than the CDC.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: tanstaafl
That's no different.to you claiming that every PCR test is ran at an absurdly high CT value surely.

That has been the CDC guidelines since this charade began.

There will be protocols right?

Apparently, yes, absurd guidelines based on purely political reasons.

a reply to: tanstaafl

So useless they had almost 100% perfect accuracy. They were more likely to return a false negative than a false positive.

All we do is follow CDC guidelines, like everyone else. It was not uncommon to run multiple PCR tests if we thought they had Covid and the first one came back negative. In the end everyone but 2 patients were positive in the IgG test.

PCR can't find what's not there. It only takes I think as few as 300 viral particles to create an infection.

Has there not been a change of administration between the beginning of the pandemic and now?

Why would the biden administration keep exactly the same plan as the trump administration?

I thought that was what US left right party politics was all about?


a reply to: tanstaafl

a reply to: nonspecific

I can do seven minutes, although I'll tell ya, my ADD kicks in on something this monotonous and that uses a bot voice (although it's a pretty good one). And then around the 6:30 mark, when the word "excitation" came on when it was talking about the flourphore/nucleotide, I couldn't get "Good Vibrations" out of my head.

So, I watched it, and I still don't see how the issues being raised by scientists concerning the PCR tests' high-cycle rate that is used is negated by any information in that video. It also makes me question how and why false positives occur.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl
So useless they had almost 100% perfect accuracy.

Whatever, this is getting really boring...

a reply to: nonspecific

Not much actually changed. All Biden did was take what Trump planned and ran with it and expanded it. Trump was limited because there was no EUA, so the vaccine could not be manufactured yet until the end of his term.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I bet it is boring to keep making claims with nothing to back it up with when it flies in the face of both the science and what actually is happening.

Here's a hint, don't believe every bitchute video.

A study showing PCR testing is 98-100% accurate. They tested 97 covid positive PCR patients with different IgG tests. 95 of the 97 had positive IgG results, only 2 of the 97 had negative results on all IgG testing.
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0237548

The voice is annoying I'll agree but it's the best video out there I've found.

I was talking about the bit at around 7 minutes when it talks about the detection in real time. Unless I've completely got it wrong it's as it sounds, it scans the sample after each cycle and monitors the results.

It seems to me that what some people think is that they just hung the test in, crank the machine up to 11 and then wait for the results to come back positive and that's not what is done.

The delta variant as has a far higher viral load so I know that in the UK it hits the threshold on average at around 23-24 cycles as opposed to a higher rate like the vanilla flavour, I'm not sure on the number but maybe 31-32?

So when testing the cycle that it hits the threshold at is important bit they continue to run it to the higher value as they have multiple tests in a batch and they need to know that there is no chance of a test with a lower viral load or a kess effective swab coming back as a false negative.

At least that's what I think happens.

In the UK the other day we ran just under a million tests and had around 33,000 positives.

Would that sound right to you if they were running at an over run CT cycle to create lots of false positives?



a reply to: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl

I bet it is boring

Yes, you are boring... at least you admit it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl

PCR can't find what's not there.

You're right PCR can't find what's not there but it CAN find dead virus and report it being there as if it was live.

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl

PCR can't find what's not there.

You're right PCR can't find what's not there but it CAN find dead virus and report it being there as if it was live.

No it can't. PCR can not report anything about that. But by using data gained on the cycles you can determine whether it's useful in determining an active infection.