Posted on 11/25/2020 8:41:39 PM PST by conservative98
Concordia University in California said more than 50 rapid COVID-19 tests offered to asymptomatic students and faculty came back with false positive results — sparking fears of a potential outbreak on campus.
[cut]
President Michael Thomas thought an outbreak was on the rise when he ordered the tests.
“We wanted to protect families so we offered the rapid, antigen test here at Concordia out of abundance of caution,” he told the Orange County Register. “It was the right thing to do for our students and their families.”
On Saturday, 48 students and 16 staff members tested positive in the last two days after they took the antigen exam, according to the university’s COVID-19 dashboard.
The students self-isolated while waiting for their results from the PCR test, which can detect the virus’ genetic material within days.
The school then canceled sports practices until the spring semester, and urged students not to travel out of state for Thanksgiving.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
More than 60 infected after COVID-19 outbreak at Concordia University in Irvine https://t.co/hpqHzCe5uS— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) November 24, 2020
Keep the FEAR coming @ABC7 🖕🏼— Ray (@Ray57782167) November 24, 2020
You need to update this story. Zero ever had symptoms and now the PCR test results are all coming back negative. Is the rapid test giving false positives keeping us in purple?— I’m not crazy. You’re crazy (@Millerthym) November 24, 2020
Turns out the rapid tests were wrong. They PCR test results are all coming back negative. This is what cause people to distrust the news— I’m not crazy. You’re crazy (@Millerthym) November 24, 2020
What if I told you all these positive results came from the rapid tests? Then what if I told you all the follow up PCR tests are coming back negative?— I’m not crazy. You’re crazy (@Millerthym) November 24, 2020
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I checked. ABC Never updated their story or post.
Not even sniffles. Just people white signed up for free testing
*who signed
None of these tests are really reliable.
Even the inventor of the polymerase chain reaction technique - who won a Nobel prize for the invention - said that it wasn’t very useful for diagnosis.
I recently had an antibody test, which came back negative. But there is a high percentage of false positives with that one, too.
I bet these tests are tainted for disruption. Are they from China too?
I don’t think they’re ‘tainted’. I think it’s just in their nature.
We haven’t perfected our techniques to be as accurate as we try and tout them as being. (That’s probably true in a lot of areas and disciplines :-)
focuses on German virologist, Christin Drosten, who rejiggered the PCR test to create fear and the CASEdemic:
20mins to 28mins: how much can we trust PCR tests etc? IT’S ALL ABOUT THE CYCLES:
Youtube: 54m31s: 14 Nov: German Lawyer Sues The World Over Coronavirus
posted by Valuetainment
Patrick Bet-David has a virtual sit down with consumer protection trial lawyer Reiner Fuellmich to talk about the Coronavirus and his work on the German Corona investigation committee.
About the guest: Dr Reiner Fuellmich is one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee, which since July 10, 2020, has been listening to large number of international scientists’ and experts’ testimonies, to find answers to questions about the pandemic, being asked by people worldwide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpOzHHJmy7g&t=1s
Wikipedia: Christian Drosten
From 2017 until 2019, Drosten was a member of the German Ministry of Health’s International Advisory Board on Global Health, chaired by Ilona Kickbusch.
COVID-19 pandemic
***On 23 January 2020, Drosten, along with other virologists in Europe and Hong Kong, published a workflow of a real-time PCR (RT-PCR) diagnostic test, ***which was quickly accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO) who sent test kits to affected regions...
In March 2020, he was appointed to the European Commission’s advisory panel on COVID-19, co-chaired by Ursula von der Leyen and Stella Kyriakides...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten
17 Nov: Utica Phoenix: Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR Tests Unreliable
By Pete Bianco
On November 11, 2020, a Portuguese appeal court ruled it was unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test.
The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that “if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown...
The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows: “Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.”
***In the US, the FDA’s instructions for PCR testing recommends a threshold of ***40 cycles for a specimen to be considered positive. See page 35 of the instructions...
At 25 cycles the original material has been multiplied 33,554,432 times.
At 30 cycles the original material has been multiplied 1,073,741,824 times.
At 40 cycles the original material has been multiplied 1,099,511,627,776 times.
As you can see there is quite a difference in magnification at various cycle thresholds.
It is also important to remember PCR was invented as a way to create copies of genetic material. Its was never intended to be a diagnostic tool.
https://www.uticaphoenix.net/2020/11/17/portuguese-appeals-court-deems-pcr-tests-unreliable/
stop testing.
As I understand it - (and I am NOWHERE NEAR AN EXPERT, and don’t even play one on TV or the Internet) - the test is just too sensitive. It’s good for amplifying and studying a virus, but not good for reliable diagnosis. I think Mullis, its inventor, said the same thing.
The Mullis segment posted first below deals with Aids; but I’ve provided a couple of others, in the hope that someone far more knowledgeable than I am might post an opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXm9kAhNj-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_1Z8cSXI-Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd4De47ldYs
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
