stock here, taken from at article at [your] NEWS
It's a great summary of the science and cycles of PCR testing, and a history of the disinformation campaign being run by the WHO and Fauci and the other complicit criminals.
http://www.eforum21.com/2020/02/jail-and-execute-drtedros-corrupt-beast.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In August of last year, The New York Times published an article stating that as many as 90% of COVID-19 tests in three states were not indicative of active illness. In other words, they were picking up viral debris incapable of causing infection or being transmitted because the cycle threshold (Ct) of the PCR testing amplified the sample too many times.
Labs in the United States were using a Ct of 37-40. Epidemiologists interviewed at the time said a Ct of around 30 was probably more appropriate. This means the CDC’s COVID-19 test standards for the PCR test would pick up an excessive number of false positives. The Times report noted that the CDC’s own data suggested the PCR did not detect live virus over a Ct of 33. The reporter also noted that clinicians were not receiving the Ct value as part of the test results.
Yet a PCR test instruction document from the CDC that had been revised five times as of July 13, 2020, specified testing and interpretation of the test using a Ct of 40. On September 28, 2020, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases from Jaafar et al. had asserted, based on patient labs and clinical data involving nearly 4,000 patients, that a Ct of 30 was appropriate for making public policy. An update to the CDC instructions for PCR testing from December 1, 2020, still uses a Ct of 40.
Shortly before the New York Times article was published, the CDC revised its COVID-19 test recommendations, saying that only symptomatic patients should be tested. The media went insane, and Dr. Fauci went all over television saying he was not part of the decision to change the testing standards:
“I am concerned about the interpretation of these recommendations and worried it will give people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern. In fact it is.”
Fauci had spoken, and the guidelines went back to testing everyone, all the time, with an oversensitive test. The idea that asymptomatic spread was a concern as of August was just one of many lies Dr. Fauci told. At the beginning of the pandemic in late January, he said:
The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.
There is not a single study or meta-analysis that differs from Fauci’s original assessment.
Today, within an hour of Joe Biden being inaugurated and signing an executive order mandating masks on all federal property, the WHO sent out a notice to lab professionals using the PCR test. It said:
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
This translates to “in the absence of symptoms, a high Ct value means you are highly unlikely to become ill or get anyone else sick in the absence of very recent exposure to an infected person.” Dr. Fauci knew this in July when he said that tests with a Ct above 35 were likely picking up viral debris or dead virus. Even at a Ct of 35, the incidence of virus samples that could replicate is very low, according to Jaafar et al. The only state I know that requires reporting the Ct with every test is Florida, which started this policy in December.
The WHO went on, stating:
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
In short, a positive PCR test in the absence of symptoms means nothing at a Ct of higher than 30, according to the experts interviewed by the New York Times and according to Jaafar et al. Yet positive tests is the number CNN loves flashing on the screen. If the percentage found by the Times in August holds, there have been approximately 2.43 million actual cases to date, not 24.3 million. There is also no way to calculate the deaths from COVID-19 rather than deaths with some dead viral debris in the nostrils.
FROM THE WHO:
WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
Date: 13 January 2021
WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2
Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.
Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.
Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
Actions to be taken by IVD users:
- Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
- Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
- Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
- Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.
Contact person for further information:
Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: rapidalert@who.int
References:
1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.
2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102
Well done, sir! Most informative, timely as can be. Of course, as many of us (most of your readers, surely) ascertained MONTHS AGO, The Power$ That Be moved the goalpost several hundred yards away, well beyond our current line of scrimmage and out of range of even our best kicker of field goals! Check the playbook, Coach, we implore! Vaccines, predictably, became the new name of "the game".
ReplyDeleteWe went from number of "COVID deaths" to numbers of "COVID cases" to rumors of COVID mutations, back to numbers of "COVID cases" -- a Parchesi-like debate over a sub-dialectic, namely "symptomatic vs. asymptomatic" "COVID-positive" individuals -- and, along the way, we CURED the FLU!!!
One wonders -- has the irresistible force of Truth -- valid, fact-based experience, reliably reported -- met the impermeable, immovable wall of human ignorance??? Mind you, to ignore is a willful, conscious act in mind. Takes energy to ignore, as much as to perceive and learn, in fact. Possible explanations for sheep-like behaviors include cognitive dissonance, em-BARE-ASS-ment in getting fooled up the WAZOO -- many other non-Freudian, non-Skinnerian explanations possible, of course.
BOILS DOWN TO FEAR, I opine. People are just scared. Raised in fear, working their butts off in fear of scarcity. Perhaps we should revive "GOD is my Fortress" as a Top Ten Hit and recite vocally and mentally as we go about our daily lives, "though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil...."
In the meantime, in mean times we live, meaner and meaner as each day dawns, GOD bless each and all.
Think of the morbidity and pyschological problems caused by torturing and entire population using MKUltra methods. What should the penalties be for the perpe-traitors be to cause so much disease, death, suicide, substance abuse due to a year of continuous fight and flight inflammation caused by fear and confusion?
Delete