Loading ...Blows the Covid-19 PCR test out of the water
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603
At a cycle rate (multiplication rate, Ct) of 35, only 3% of positive tests are actual infections (can grow a virus). Most Covid-19 PCR tests use a cycle rate higher than 35.
Look at this beautiful chart. Almost as beautiful as those commitments of traders reports for Gold (COT)…
From Twitter:
https://twitter.com/michael__ssp/status/1328460783068524545
Anyone who doesn’t think this pandemic and its vaccine is a cleverly coordinated conspiracy is a real nut case.
Here’s some more regarding a court case in Portugal in the Azores which cited the above study in its decision:
Wow Thanks Tim H
This study was cited by none other than A Fauci
He admitted that over 35 cycles all cases were false positives
But he didn’t do anything about it.
I was looking around for a graph like this
Thanks a ton and the comments are right on
Go Portugal !
I think I saw that video with Fauci. He really is a snake. He knows that Ct values are critical in determining the likelihood of a true diagnosis of Covid and yet doesn’t seem too concerned that Ct values are neither reported nor are they standardized. Any positive result is a good result for his purposes.
It’s just unbelievable that any official takes PCR “cases” seriously. In the Ontario gov publication, An Overview of Cycle Threshold Values and their Role in SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time PCR Test Interpretation (Sept 17/20)
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/main/2020/09/cycle-threshold-values-sars-cov2-pcr.pdf?la=en
they sound very confused when it comes to telling you what a positive test really indicates especially when someone gets them repeatedly. I think this is why many doctors are asking for direction on how to interpret PCR “cases” for patients in the real world, ie. is my patient actually infected? should they get a retest? They want to know how to interpret them from a practical standpoint although public health and government officials are quite confident imposing restrictions based on such unverifiable results.
All of these reports are less than 2 months old. Perhaps it’s taking some time to have an effect.