Ill say it again. We need to get our definitions straight.
What is your definition of “false positive”? If you think this test is generating 97% of positive results due to random error, you are wrong. That’s not what they are saying.
People on both sides of the argument are just parroting bullshit stats back and forth with no understanding of what they really mean.
The study in question cultured test swabs which were also used with the PCR test. They tried to grow the virus in a petri dish with human cell medium.
For swabs that tested positive at 25 cycles of the PCR test, 70% had enough virus to infect the cells in the petri dish. At 30 cycles, only 20% of the positive swabs had enough virus to infect the cells. At 35 cycles (standard) that number was 3%.
This percentage would not necessarily directly indicate the percentage of tested subjects that are capable of being infectious. But it would correlate to it.
So this could be an indication that a PCR test using 35 cycles is testing positive for people that have the virus but are very unlikely to pass it on or ever develop and infection.
But in this case your are actually testing for contagiousness. Not presence of the virus.
So know your fucking definitions.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603
Well false positive is quite self explanatory, false positive as in "the test returned a false positive result"
Even the inventor of the PCR test says it's totally not suited to diagnose covid19, especially with the way it's done
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives
>Dr Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR process, was clear that it wasn’t meant as a diagnostic tool, saying:
>with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”
>And, commenting on cycle thresholds, once said:
>If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”
>This has all been public knowledge since the beginning of the lockdown. The Australian government’s own website admitted the tests were flawed, and a court in Portugal ruled they were not fit for purpose.
>Even Dr Anthony Fauci has publicly admitted that a cycle threshold over 35 is going to be detecting “dead nucleotides”, not a living virus.
>Despite all this, it is known that many labs around the world have been using PCR tests with CT values over 35, even into the low 40s.
> Well false positive is quite self explanatory, false positive as in "the test returned a false positive result"
No it certainly isn’t. Positve for what? Presence of the virus? Then the PCR test is highly accurate. It is testing for a series of nucleotides that would be virtually impossible to occur randomly in your body. It is testing for long strands of rna that are highly improbable to occur anywhere else in nature.
But maybe we don’t care whether someone has a trace amount of virus. Probability of infection (replication) and consequently contagiousness is what we really care about. These scientists are pointing out that people with low amounts of the virus are unlikely to get the illness or spread it.
Thats what the inventor of the PCR test is pointing out.
You need to additional samples from people who only test positive at 35 cycles, and monitor whether their viral load increases and whether they get symptoms.
That way you can give people their probability of developing or spreading covid with positive results.
>No it certainly isn’t.
Yes, it is
>Positve for what? Presence of the virus?
Well duh... Being tested positive for covid19 doesn't mean "good news you don't have it"...
>Then the PCR test is highly accurate.
Its inventor said the exact opposite, especially when it comes to anything above 35 cycles with it "with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody." And, commenting on cycle thresholds, once said: "If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”
(post is archived)