Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
Absolutely. Back when they were running around 40 cycles of amplification, the false positive rate was something like 97% of all tests.
That’s why people like me didn’t pay any attention whatsoever to the number of “new cases“ each week.
It was essentially all bull****. No mistake, the WHO and CDC absolutely knew that at the time. They have since been forced to reduce the recommended number of cycles, because too much information made it out to the sheep. Then the sheep started asking questions.
|
Got a link for some info on that? I'd like to read a bit more about it.
And have you talked to MIT to them know they're doing it wrong?
"The PCR test analyzes samples by amplifying viral RNA in cycles. Most tests, like the Broad Institute test used by MIT, use a 40-cycle protocol. If the virus isn’t detected within 40 amplification cycles, the test result is negative. If viral RNA is detected in 40 cycles or less, the PCR machine stops running, and the test is positive. Because you received a positive result, we know that the test detected the virus in your sample by the time it reached its 40-cycle limit."
More: "A positive test that comes back positive in 20 cycles contains a greater amount of virus than one requiring 40 cycles. Right now, we just call both results “positive.” But it’s obvious that the first sample came from an individual with a higher viral load. And the greater the viral load, the more contagious the patient is likely to be."