PING
Better order up another 500 million kits then. Oh, and while you’re busy wasting our tax dollars, may as well pony up for a buhzillion N95 masks too.
Thx
FauXi belongs in GITMO, waterboarded,
and then in a cage with the families of
his DEAD VICTIMS (humans only; poor dogs later).
Isn’t it time for the Fake Doctors on this site that have berated people like my for posting this exact same thing to chime in and tell us we are crazy and that the PCR test is a fabulous tool??
BTTT!!!
Not surprised that this article with multiple links is from the UK. The powers that be in the USA are too invested in retaining their draconian emergency powers to allow publication of such important information. We here on Freerepublic have known that the PCR test was yielding far too many false positives practically from the start of the pandemic.
It should be renamed to the Ventilator test. If positive you go on to the only US treatment.
My question is how can anyone test negative with this āvirusā having been around for 2 years? Airborneā¦virtually impossible.
well, duh! but why did he do this? because their vax push that will move from OSHA to a different agency had a test out option. Can’t have that! Make the vax the only game in town.
The headline should include that word "accurately," as it can indeed detect CV, and thus this lack of qualifier allows "fact checkers" to label it as false, just as they did with the statement by Dinesh DāSouza of āthese cops using massive amounts of force against unarmed Trump supporters,ā since there were armed protesters in the tunnel as well, and thus he should have said "including" unarmed Trump supporters. We are in a culture war.
And the problems with accuracy are not new, for months ago even the NYT printed this opinion piece:
"Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldnāt Be," by Apoorva Mandavilli, Published Aug. 29, 2020 Updated July 3, 2021The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk ā akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. āIām shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,ā she said.The C.D.C.ās own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.