FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > What the number of “positive SARS Cov-2 cases” are based on – RT PCR (Real Time Polymerase Chain Rea
What the number of “positive SARS Cov-2 cases” are based on – RT PCR (Real Time Polymerase Chain Rea
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"I thought it meant Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction but whoops that's me." Yes, you are correct. The standard PCR amplifies DNA, whereas in this case the material is RNA. In RT-PCR, the reverse transcriptase enzyme is used to generate DNA from the RNA. The DNA is then amplified by PCR. Real-time PCR means the amplified DNA is being detected in real time during the PCR process, whereas in the original methodology was done afterwards. | |||
"“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction The above quote from the late inventor about the use of PCR testing in the controversy over HIV – he did not believe the PCR test to be a suitable diagnostic tool for viruses. Why does no-one talk about these considering they form the basis of the statistics publicised? Having spent time reading articles, websites, listening to “experts”, researching, delving beyond what the government and the media is putting into the public domain, and, no, not tinfoil hat conspiracy theories (I do not believe in the New World Order), but websites like the WHO, CDC, FDA, Worldometer, Euromomo (European mortality monitoring activity, aiming to detect and measure excess deaths related to seasonal influenza, pandemics…), Central Statistics Office, Center of Evidence Based Medicine (part of Oxford University) to name but a few… And noting that the one thing that all of our statistics regarding Covid 19 is based on, is the RT PCR test. Statistically speaking, the more PCR tests are carried out, the more “absolute” positive cases you will get, in other words, the higher the number of cases reported. PCR tests need to be licensed by the FDA. Yet, RT PCR tests used for testing for Covid 19 have been passed UEA or “under emergency authorisation” according to the FDA website, in other words they would not have gone through the usual licensing process due to…? Even at this stage... According to an article on the Center of Evidence Based Medicine: “PCR kits for SARS Cov2 (manufacturers and asymptomatic) PCR positives on asymptomatic people should be treated with care since it is possible that the asymptomatic people are not infectious. This is even when the PCR tests or the antibody tests are positive. This is because viral culture is required to establish if the viral RNA is capable of infecting cells and “reproduce”. PCR manufacturers typically remind the users that “the detection result of this product is only for CLINICAL REFERENCE, and it should NOT be used as the ONLY evidence for CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS and treatment[3]” and “DESIGNED FOR the specific IDENTIFICATION and differentiation of the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in clinical samples from patients WITH signs and symptoms of Covid19”.” With contact testing and tracing in place, I wonder how many test subjects are, in fact, symptomatic?! According to a German epidemiologist (I’ll find the interview, though it is in German), a “case” should only be deemed a “case” where there is a positive test WITH symptoms of the disease. But where “case” definition goes, every country seems to have their own definitions what actually makes a case, what is the cause of death etc… Fact is that PCR tests detect the presence of viral RNA by targeting one or more gene fragments. BUT is this viral RNA active, in other words, does it have the capacity to reproduce or infect (virulence) or get transmitted to other people (infectivity). The PCR test alone CANNOT answer this question!!! According to this particular article (on CEBM), among many others! “Culturing the virus is needed” and “the PCR detects the virus in the human sample, this detection might correspond to a virus that is now incapable of infecting cells and reproduce. Biologists can tell if the virus is infectious by injecting it into cells (culture cells). If these cells are not affected by the virus and the virus does not reproduce in them, then the PCR test found a virus that is no longer active. The meaning is that the PCR positive is a non-infectious positive.” The article quoted above also states that viruses like Covid 19, influenza, SARS and MERS can stay in the body for months after having entered it! Now I have to admit I don’t know much about the testing procedures carried out by the NHS (UK) or HSE (Rep of Ireland) but I would be extremely surprised if on top of the PCR tests carried out, the viruses from all the positive cases were cultured to inspect virulence and infectivity…because I am sure it is costly, time consuming, staff, equipment and facilities are needed… The reason I am putting this out there is because I have come across plenty of “experts” out there who question the use of the PCR test in the situation that we find ourselves in. I have also come across experts who have similarly questioned the use of the same PCR test targeted at the bird flu virus during the bird flu pandemic. There was also a lot of controversy over HIV where this test was implicated. What I’m saying is that there are experts in these fields not advising our governments with facts, and yes, opinions. But all facts and opinions need to be heard and taken under advice and consideration in a democratic environment! In addition, I have come across an article which explains that there are different standards set and used to then deem a test result either positive or negative (article displayed on the Bulgarian Pathology Association, another article by the New York Times displayed on the Advisory Board). To explain I quote as per article: “ “PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.” This is where it gets wild. “In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive. David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement: “I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”” As I have implied, I am not a believer of conspiracy theories. The last comment of the interviewee implies that there may be manipulation in place, which is where, I believe, only taking the test sample one step further to culturing the sample of the virus to find out if it is capable of reproducing and damaging the cells will actually tell if you are infected or infectious, no matter where the perimeters of the PCR test are placed for deeming a sample positive or negative (or alternatively you are in fact displaying symptoms, which as mentioned above are the guidelines to using the test in the first place). The HSE is using their tests/lab at 40-45 cycles. A quote from one line of an article in the New York times displayed by the Advisory Board: “Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California-Riverside, said she believes any test with a cycle threshold over 35 is too sensitive. "I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.” Ivor Cummins has just released a video with an outlook for Europe, specifically looking at Ireland and Sweden, looking at trends from the past and where this may or may not be heading (because none of us know obviously). What I found interesting was that he featured a clip of Dr. David Nabarro, working for the WHO, who clearly stated that lockdowns are absolutely the very last measure to be taken by any leader, in order to allow a country to “re-group and re-organise and rebalance resources, protect the health care workers who are exhausted” and “lockdowns have only one consequence and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer”. My aim of putting this information out there is not to say that there is no virus, or it’s not as bad/dangerous as it looks. I am aware of the figures according to the CSO with all the statistical data in Ireland according to deaths, ages affected, ICU patients, hospitalisations, active cases; and yes, I do believe we don’t know half enough about the virus and the long term effects it obviously has on some. I know this will be read mostly by the UK Forum users, and obviously with a country the size of the UK, numbers and cases sound an awful lot worse for the UK than they do for a country the size of the Republic of Ireland. What I am saying is that we need a hell of a lot more information on the type of “cases” that are actually presenting as positive, in other words, are they asymptomatic (and in particularly the asymptomatic viral cultures shoyld be grown to confirm virulence and infectivity!), symptomatic, how severe do the symptoms present and develop, do “cases” have underlying conditions, age, in need of hospitalisation etc, but the HSE is refusing to do so – just stating the number of positives with what I believe to be true where testing is concerned as described above, is in my opinion sheer scare mongering and doesn’t serve anyone…we can all contribute our bit to protect society as a whole by following the advice and guidelines – social distancing, minimising our social contacts, hygiene and wearing our face coverings. " OK I confess to being a blithering idiot with this level of detail. And a little knowledge is often a dangerous thing. But I enjoyed your explanation and if its true I do agree we need to obtain a lot more information and detail about what the positive tests actually mean as far as infections. I don't mind if they are being extra cautious but if we only have half of the information... Let's get the other half please. | |||
| |||
"The original post has been presented many times as "evidence" that the virus is not at all serious. Unfortunately the "investor's statement " has been twisted, and he ONLY said it was not ideal for detecting HIV. The effectiveness has been verified at 97%." Ahhh... Suckered | |||
| |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. " The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. " As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. " Doris said only 7% accurate as did Cock. It picks up dead and alive shreds of anything, you'd have to petra dish each one to prove its live nevermind shouldn't be amplified more than 35,Serco are amp 45 plus but hey ho people are flocking for their positive badge and its driving the R rate | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. " The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates." That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. Doris said only 7% accurate as did Cock. It picks up dead and alive shreds of anything, you'd have to petra dish each one to prove its live nevermind shouldn't be amplified more than 35,Serco are amp 45 plus but hey ho people are flocking for their positive badge and its driving the R rate " Dunno where you read that bullshit | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. " If you have no idea what the poster means maybe better to Google it than what you did. | |||
"Doris said only 7% accurate as did Cock. It picks up dead and alive shreds of anything, you'd have to petra dish each one to prove its live nevermind shouldn't be amplified more than 35,Serco are amp 45 plus but hey ho people are flocking for their positive badge and its driving the R rate " I’m sure that’s a great comfort to the 4650 people currently in hospital suffering from Covid-19, and an even greater comfort to the families of the 143 who died yesterday. | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. " Errr do you understand how a statistical baseline works!? Or are you actually expecting every single test globally to be do e multiple times to give an absolutely precise number? | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. If you have no idea what the poster means maybe better to Google it than what you did." The baseline is determined on a % probability so I stick by my statement how do you quantify false positives for actual tests performed? | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. If you have no idea what the poster means maybe better to Google it than what you did. The baseline is determined on a % probability so I stick by my statement how do you quantify false positives for actual tests performed? " Basic maths maybe??  | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. If you have no idea what the poster means maybe better to Google it than what you did. The baseline is determined on a % probability so I stick by my statement how do you quantify false positives for actual tests performed? Basic maths maybe?? "That will still not determine the actual number of false positives. | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. If you have no idea what the poster means maybe better to Google it than what you did. The baseline is determined on a % probability so I stick by my statement how do you quantify false positives for actual tests performed? Basic maths maybe??
That will still not determine the actual number of false positives."You are actually a lost cause.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. If you have no idea what the poster means maybe better to Google it than what you did. The baseline is determined on a % probability so I stick by my statement how do you quantify false positives for actual tests performed? Basic maths maybe??
That will still not determine the actual number of false positives.
You are actually a lost cause. "I think if you try taking of your blinkers you my be able to get a 360 degree view. Endex. Out to you. | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. If you have no idea what the poster means maybe better to Google it than what you did. The baseline is determined on a % probability so I stick by my statement how do you quantify false positives for actual tests performed? Basic maths maybe??
That will still not determine the actual number of false positives.
You are actually a lost cause.
I think if you try taking of your blinkers you my be able to get a 360 degree view. Endex. Out to you. "I'm sorry, I'm not going to take a lecture from someone who can't even manage to do basic maths. Let me help you. If I have 100 positive tests, and I take away 97 %, how many am I left with? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Unfortunately we have no gold standard test for sars-cov2 so PCR is used as best as possible but in short yes it's not ideal and can give false measures hence so many many asymptomatic cases." The PCR test gives very few false positives, it is more prone to give a false negative. Asymptomatic cases are largely precisely that. Those people can then infect many others without always being aware they are doing so. | |||
"I didn't want to quote the whole post as I didn't want to take up all the page but it would certainly seems you have been doing some thorough research OP. I would tend to agree that the testing method would seem to giving a lot of false positives. The tests give very few false positives, they do unfortunately give more false negatives. However they are the best method we and the world have right at this moment in time. They are still working on faster and more accurate tests. As I highlighted on another post how can you quantify how many false positives there have been? You can't unless you do a follow up test and it comes back as negative, which is not done. The tests have been globally evaluated to establish a baseline for both false positive and false negative result rates. That is only a baseline so still cannot quantify how many there has been. If you have no idea what the poster means maybe better to Google it than what you did. The baseline is determined on a % probability so I stick by my statement how do you quantify false positives for actual tests performed? Basic maths maybe??
That will still not determine the actual number of false positives.
You are actually a lost cause.
I think if you try taking of your blinkers you my be able to get a 360 degree view. Endex. Out to you. "360 degree vision hmmm you seem to have more than maths illiteracy going on there | |||
"Unfortunately we have no gold standard test for sars-cov2 so PCR is used as best as possible but in short yes it's not ideal and can give false measures hence so many many asymptomatic cases." I'm really struggling with the logic of that one Maybe you should spend some time finding out what a "gold standard" test actually means lol | |||
"I thought it meant Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction but whoops that's me. Yes, you are correct. The standard PCR amplifies DNA, whereas in this case the material is RNA. In RT-PCR, the reverse transcriptase enzyme is used to generate DNA from the RNA. The DNA is then amplified by PCR. Real-time PCR means the amplified DNA is being detected in real time during the PCR process, whereas in the original methodology was done afterwards. " Am I also correct in believing it is not diagnostic but merely a technique for amplifying nuclear material? | |||
