Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4880983" data-attributes="member: 63706">They reiterated it last August, and even updated it in April:[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html[/URL]&quot;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.&quot;&quot;One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.&quot;“&#039;It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests — that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,&#039; said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.&quot;&quot;With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. &#039;I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,&#039; he said.&quot;Of course the fake checkers are quick to gaslight people into thinking the article doesn&#039;t mean what it says. The idiot scientists and doctors who thought PCR was being used appropriately to diagnose infections are finally catching up to the facts every other scientist knew to begin with. At least they are too dumb to realize they should be embarrassed for not knowing better to begin with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4880983, member: 63706"] They reiterated it last August, and even updated it in April: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html[/URL] "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." "One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus. Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said." “'It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests — that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,' said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York." "With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30. In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. 'I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,' he said." Of course the fake checkers are quick to gaslight people into thinking the article doesn't mean what it says. The idiot scientists and doctors who thought PCR was being used appropriately to diagnose infections are finally catching up to the facts every other scientist knew to begin with. At least they are too dumb to realize they should be embarrassed for not knowing better to begin with. [/QUOTE]

Verification