Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Fatal Flaw in PCR Testing: 42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test. This means COVID-19 Vaccine Outcomes Rate Data are Unreliable and Invalid

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Fatal Flaw in PCR Testing: 42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test. This means COVID-19 Vaccine Outcomes Rate Data are Unreliable and Invalid, ifinnegan wrote:
“We” is the author of this substack piece and a colleague.
-
Sub stack does not publish peer reviewed articles.
From my prior response to you:
"If you read the article, he wrote about their work and linked to publications and a presentation. But you have to read it to know that."
You just HAVE to try to distract and detract from the article any way you can because you can't refute the content.

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Fatal Flaw in PCR Testing: 42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test. This means COVID-19 Vaccine Outcomes Rate Data are Unreliable and Invalid, pops88 wrote:
Quite the verbiage- so it’s the test’s flaw that made it fatal then, not collaborating and colluding with evil by men? We need test control! And I thought the test was just a delivery system.
Scientists get stripped of access to research laboratories and censored from publishing and are therefore effectively silenced if they may statements they cannot prove in the laboratory.
There is no PCR test for evil.
But those scientists can line up all the evidence the rest of us need to make the case - our 'overlords' in the NIH and CDC absolutely knew they used and continue to use an invalid test during what they falsely claimed was a pandemic as a result of what they falsely claimed was a 'novel' virus, and denied us access to critical life-saving treatments because they lied and said it didn't work.

The response is likewise jibberish. I read the blog entry (as it is not truly peer reviewed nor a journal) and specifically looked at the reference which is also open source pay to play. It simply is not peer reviewed standard.

It is equally unclear to me why there is a waste of time relitigating this seven days before the most consequential mid term in a very long time

There is no question PCR is the wrong first line test. It is a confirmatory test for an Elisa test if necessary. People don’t understand the word false positive. But they think they do. It is virtually impossible for a highly specific test to have a false positive. The PCR test it self has an extremely high positive predictive value while Elisa testing has high negative predictive values.

The positives at the PCR were all true. It is evident that numerous states also repeated too many cycles generally procuring a positive that was accurate although not clinical significant. So they really are not falsely positive. They are true positive of insignificant clinical value.

I recall early on there were a couple of reasonably well done studies demonstrating severe it of disease was directly correlated to viral load. That would make sense as many times viral load determines illness severity. There is question that. PCR is not screening. But what I think we learned with PCR was that asymptomatic infection was the most likely expression of the disease.

“The positives at the PCR were all true. It is evident that numerous states also repeated too many cycles generally procuring a positive that was accurate although not clinical significant. So they really are not falsely positive. They are true positive of insignificant clinical value.”

This is a reasonable way to state it, but when doctors, laboratories, government, and even business entities go by the “Gold Standard” PCR test as defined by the CDC on how to do it, what you state becomes entirely irrelevant. You can have and know the truth, but if no one agrees, it is completely meaningless, save for you knowing. If the official test defines a positive as “X,” that is exactly what it is, for the whole world, for better or worse. Therefore, it is a “false positive” in the world outside of you and me, and that includes those doctors, etc. - anyone in authority who relied on it, and shouldn't have - on behalf of supposed, dangerous, “infected” people.

My wife, to show up at a company function in another state, was required to have a PCR test this year after going to it last year with a quick test which some coworkers apparently got and wound up sharing SARS-Cov-2 everywhere, infecting over a dozen other workers. So HR believed the PCR test would stop that, this time.

Consequently, we didn't bother to check or go.

As you know, the new CDC director literally stated that with the PCR test, people show as COVID positive over twelve weeks after they isolated, not quarantined, after exposure to a person or persons who might have had it, but were never confirmed to have had it.

Why CDC doesn't require testing at end of isolation: Director (PCR false positives for non-infected, “isolated” people, 12 weeks after):

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4025151/posts

Now, it is possible I caught the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky, in a misspeak, but it hasn't been corrected, if so, to my knowledge.

I think it is obviously clear to both medical professionals and lay people what the CDC has always defined as “isolation” versus “quarantine,” and when you do either.

On the PCR test's usefulness: I grant that it is likely near 100% accurate on true positives, inherently, but why didn't the CDC merely say to keep using the PCR test, but keep the cycles to 10 or 15? That way you have the best of both worlds. You have ~100% true positives (one cycle would technically have this little marker) and ~0% “false” positives. That's a perfect test.

Instead, she had the CDC order medical entities everywhere to not rely on it as any sort of first line test, despite the rapid tests not catching Omicron as well as they could have. Heck, the CDC doesn't rely on it for a 12 week later test, either.

Strangely, I was tested last year through the Red Cross for antibodies, and had none, and, when my wife had that concerning bout with her COVID, I, too, got rapid-tested at the same two times she did (at the beginning and at the end) and never showed positive. I haven't bothered to pay for an antibody test, since, but I felt I should have had the greater consequences with a bout of COVID, due to my greater age and somewhat higher BMI. I thank God, and doctors, such as yourself, for helping my wife through what was becoming a more concerning time. Our doctor prescribed the appropriate medicines (but was strangely uptight that I had her tested by the nurse for both COVID and the flu), and she rapidly improved by the 12th day, or so. As you may recall, she had a “rebound” type of COVID interaction, after her temperature had dropped back to just 99 in the mornings, for a couple days.

To this day, I can't determine if what was happening was an immune system overreaction or secondary infection, which the three drugs would have addressed.

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.