PCR False Positives?

[javadog]

Originally Posted by thor66

Why not just pay attn. to cabmando? It will save you a lot of work and stress.

All his posts this are correct.

Butt out.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by cabmando

And you're not supporting the claim of 97% false positive. Finding 8% of the people at 40 cycles with culturable live virus does nothing to support the ridiculous claim of 97% false positive at 40 cycles. Now as much as I'd love to continue with this, I see no point in it if you aren't able to support your initial claim. We can go off on tangents about cycle thresholds or whatever tangent you'd like but I'm not going to let you off the hook for supporting your initial claim. As I pointed out to Tobra, there is no evidence to support that absurd claim.

Stick with me. Remember we’re dealing with a small sample size, so let’s read the blue line on the graph, shall we?

You’re not looking at 8%, it’s under five. Could be two or three, the resolution is poor.

Remember, we’re considering only positive tests here. No negative tests.

Also, remember we’re throwing out any test that showed positive before 40 cycles.

So, I’ll ask again, if you have a positive test and it took 40 cycles to yield that positive result, what are the odds of getting a live virus in the test?

Lastly, don’t forget that I’m not interested in a test result that doesn’t also yield live virus.

[cabmandone]

Were done here. I'm not wasting any more of my time with this nonsense.

[thor66]

https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/11/pcr-test-result

[1990C4S]

I think what thor posted might be a good place to end this.

[cabmandone]

Should have ended at #47 but it went on... as it will undoubtedly do from here as well.

[javadog]

Yeah, Nick The Almighty has spoken. Let that be the final word.

Originally Posted by cabmando

I want the one that shows 97% false at or near 40 cycles.. That's the one I care most about. When I searched I came up with the article from MIT explaining PCR and how it works. You said AT 40 cycles 97% false.

Yeah, I did. I said, essentially, that if it took 40 cycles to finally yield a positive result, it's a false positive. False positive, as in detecting dead virus fragments in a person with no clinical infection. In other words, nothing to worry about. Patient is neither sick or contagious. That requires live virus to be present, in some quantity.

If you can't see that in the graphs I have posted, then you're beyond educable.

[cabmandone]

See... Told ya so.

Proof be damned I tell you! Argue on I will even if facts are against me! 97% false positive!!

[javadog]

And yet, you keep avoiding the question. How many people out of 100, with a positive test result at 40 cycles, have live virus in their system? Can you calculate a percentage from that? You know, divide that number by 100.

[cabmandone]

I know. I'm going to take your word over that of someone at MIT. Where's Wayne at? I've got some choice words for him.

[javadog]

More data for Nick.

See if you can figure out why the CDC has backed off their suggested cycle number to 33.

I’ll give you bonus points if you can tell me why Fauci The Liar still hangs his hat at 35 cycles.

The data doesn’t extend all the way out to 40 cycles but, reasonable people can still make an inference.

[cabmandone]

Because they haven't? The claim that they backed off to a CT of 33 is also fiction. Their suggestion is to use the tool as recommended by the manufacturer. But I'm sure you'll provide some proof that they backed off of 40 to 33... right?

[javadog]

Originally Posted by cabmando

I know. I'm going to take your word over that of someone at MIT. Where's Wayne at? I've got some choice words for him.

Don’t take my word for it, take a look at the raw data and make up your own ****ing mind.

[cabmandone]

Find me that conspiracy JD! Dig it up!!

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by javadog

Don’t take my word for it, take a look at the raw data and make up your own ****ing mind.

Oh trust me, I'm not taking your word for it. That's 100% certain.

[1990C4S]

It's not a false positive by any technical definition of the term. It might be an irrelevant positive, but it's not false.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

It's not a false positive by any technical definition of the term. It might be an irrelevant positive, but it's not false.

Nope! After three weeks if they test you at above 35 cycles it's a false positive. Or at least that seems to be what JD is indicating here. I keep seeing "look at the charts" but one of us is looking at the information and coming up with the wrong conclusions. Me, I use the conclusions the folks who made the charts came up with. Someone else though sees it and says "look! 97% false positive!"

[1990C4S]

[cabmandone]

I see the crowd giving Brock an added boost and he escapes the grip of Cena.

Yeah I used to watch WWE.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

It's not a false positive by any technical definition of the term. It might be an irrelevant positive, but it's not false.

Not false? Irrelevant?

WTF are you testing for?

If I get a Covid test, I want to know if I have a viral infection. That's why I get the test.

What are you looking for?