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

The fact that the newer test kits are getting supported by Soros and Bill Gates is even more questionable.

originally posted by: HawkEyi
The fact that the newer test kits are getting supported by Soros and Bill Gates is even more questionable.

Another lie. They bought into LFT tests, not PCR. They have nothing to do with 'newer test kits'. No place is switching from PCR to LFT.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's interesting how certain members just become fixated on a single post .

You seem very determined to wave your hands in front of anyone's face who responds to this topic , Strange thing is I've rarely if ever seen you post on ATS at least on a topic that you yourself didn't start especially with such regularity on any one topic.

I'm not sure what my point is , I'm just saying it's strange.

Right, we”l believe it because everyones been so honest with us so far

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

You have no point, my account is 10 years old and I have quite a lot of posts. Much like with this topic you seem fixated on untrue things and miss the truth in front of your face.

Question, did Gates and Soros buy into PCR?
Question, did the CDC do away with all PCR testing?

Question, if the answer to both is no why are you supporting and defending the liars of the thread rather than the truth?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
a reply to: LordAhriman

Why don't you explain it then? I don't do Reddit.

They came up with a new test that can detect covid and influenza. The tests they're moving away from could only detect covid. If it came back negative, they would have to do another test to see if someone had the flu. It saves time and money to do a 2 for 1 test, so they're recommending everyone start using the new test as we move into flu season. Nowhere, anywhere, does it say that the old test was showing the flu as covid. It's not possible. Influenza viruses have very little in common and covid PCR tests are looking for a very specific rna that has nothing in common with a flu virus.

Facts don't really matter to the people who are desperate to prove their illogical standpoint is, erroneously, justified.

originally posted by: nonspecific

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?

I don't think that I ever said or implied that I think that they're doing this on purpose "to create lots of false positives."

What I have been reading (and I'm paraphrasing from memory, so excuse me if I get something a little off) is that, when the cycles are as high as the current out-phasing PCR tests are using, some of the positives are actually non-living, non-transmitting remnants of previous invections, so the positive test doesn't relate to an actively infected individual in real life.

That is what I meant when I said that nothing in that video negates the points that I have personally been making in this discussion. I was a good descriptive video of how the test is done, but it referenced nothing as far as the point of contention that I've raised.

OccamsRazor04 says that such a detection of decayed/dead viral fingerprints "can't happen," yet I've read virologists and lab techs claiming the opposite. Regardless, I'm okay with where I'm at in the understanding at this point, unless something massively changes. We'll see what the future holds.

Thanks for the civil discussion on this--some people are getting out of hand with emotions on this topic.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

What I have been reading (and I'm paraphrasing from memory, so excuse me if I get something a little off) is that, when the cycles are as high as the current out-phasing PCR tests are using, some of the positives are actually non-living, non-transmitting remnants of previous invections, so the positive test doesn't relate to an actively infected individual in real life.

There is no difference in PCR cycles, they are not 'phasing out high PCR cycle tests', they are phasing out tests that don't detect multiple virus in one test. No matter what PCR cycle you use, you can never tell if they are living or nonliving, or infectious vs noninfectious. PCR can't tell that, ever.

OccamsRazor04 says that such a detection of decayed/dead viral fingerprints "can't happen," yet I've read virologists and lab techs claiming the opposite. Regardless, I'm okay with where I'm at in the understanding at this point, unless something massively changes. We'll see what the future holds.

I said the PCR can never detect whether the virus was alive or dead when it was swabbed. Someone with a positive IgG test will likely still come up positive on a PCR, even though they have no active infection.

If you link me studies showing lots of positive PCR results had no actual infection I am willing to look at it. PCR is about 98-100% accurate from everything I have read and seen, and a false negative is much more likely.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
There is no difference in PCR cycles, they are not 'phasing out high PCR cycle tests', they are phasing out tests that don't detect multiple virus in one test. No matter what PCR cycle you use, you can never tell if they are living or nonliving, or infectious vs noninfectious. PCR can't tell that, ever.

Yes, I understand that they are not phasing out all PCR test, but the CDC did remove their EUA request for the current one in order to replace it (which you already know), but it is not until December of this year because they want to give public-health agencies time to phase it out and fully replace it with the new ones. That was an actual, enumerated reason from the CDC as to why they are waiting so long to remove it from circulation and emergency-use authorization.

I said the PCR can never detect whether the virus was alive or dead when it was swabbed. Someone with a positive IgG test will likely still come up positive on a PCR, even though they have no active infection.

If you link me studies showing lots of positive PCR results had no actual infection I am willing to look at it. PCR is about 98-100% accurate from everything I have read and seen, and a false negative is much more likely.

Yeah, my focus and complain hasn't been centered around which has a higher occurrence (false positives or negatives), it's about how inaccurate that it can be overall, and we certainly know for a fact that they are not 100% effective, and I would argue that, overall, they certainly don't fall in your given range in specific regard to COVID-19, considering what I'm hearing from the medical professionals that I know AND the people whose test were wrong (generally being false negatives)...my wife being on of them, as have a few other family members.

So, no, I don't have a link to anything that only talks about the rate of false positives, but that's not really the overall concern, that's just a little part of the bigger issues that show me (maybe not you or others) that relying heavily on the stats from the results of these PCR tests isn't showing itself to have the accuracy needed to do things like shut down states and destroy livelihoods.

My apologies if I misrepresented what your statement was--you're not arguing against what I've read in regard to detection of live/dead viral RNA/DNA, so that's all good then.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

They are ending one PCR test, there are tons of them. It is not because it didn't work well, not because newer tests give better results for covid, the only reason is it doesn't make sense to do a single assay only for Covid when a multi-assay for covid and flu and other virus can give you all that data in one test.

Where I work moved to the quad assay long ago. Technically the original single covid assay is available, but it's only ordered in error when the Dr doesn't know which one they are supposed to order, which happened a lot in July, otherwise not so much.

The PCR test is 98-100% accurate. It is very rare for a positive PCR to not yield a positive IgG within a few weeks.