New Data Leaked from NHS Reveals Misleading COVID Hospitalization Claims

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: ScepticScot

TY...ANOTHER admission that any Ct over 28 is useless for actual diagnosis...AS WELL AS for additional sequencing.

“For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)”

-CDC Source

No its showing your claim was wrong.

a reply to: nonspecific

I've provided numerous sources for you...including Fauci and Dr. Racaniello.
Even the need to only use tests @ 28 or less for additional sequencing reinforces the fact.

Believe what you wish...but never claim you have not been made aware of the fact that the PCR test scan @ 28+ is useless for diagnosing CV infection.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: ScepticScot

TY...ANOTHER admission that any Ct over 28 is useless for actual diagnosis...AS WELL AS for additional sequencing.

“For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)”

-CDC Source

No its showing your claim was wrong.

I've publicly accepted that it refers to 'additional sequencing' in that post's source and removed that post....but it also clearly shows (and states) the uselessness of any PCR scanned @ 28+.

I just went and looked directly on the CDC website in the end.

It would have saved time all round of you'd just linked to that.





a reply to: IAMTAT

But for you to be correct all PCR tests would have to detect
only over 28 cycles.

How do you explain this?



a reply to: IAMTAT

originally posted by: nonspecific
I just went and looked directly on the CDC website in the end.

It would have saved time all round of you'd just linked to that.





a reply to: IAMTAT

I was trying to be courteous and prompt in my reply...while assuming you also had the ability to actually research for yourself.

You proved me correct.

I'm perfectly capable of using a search engine.

It's all down to weather I think it's worth even bothering that matters.



a reply to: IAMTAT

originally posted by: nonspecific
I'm perfectly capable of using a search engine.

It's all down to weather I think it's worth even bothering that matters.



a reply to: IAMTAT

Well, that's all on you, then.
Stop asking everyone to go through the 'bother' of searching for you...when you can't bother to do it yourself.

You made the claim and then used a highly questionable source as evidence.

It's not the first time so is it really that hard to understand my lack of enthusiasm for spending my limited time on it?

As I said if you'd just linked to the CDC in the first place none of this would have happened.



a reply to: IAMTAT

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: ScepticScot

TY...ANOTHER admission that any Ct over 28 is useless for actual diagnosis...AS WELL AS for additional sequencing.

“For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)”

-CDC Source

No its showing your claim was wrong.

I've publicly accepted that it refers to 'additional sequencing' and removed that post....but it also clearly shows (and states) the uselessness of any PCR scanned @ 28+.

It doesn't state that at all. What it does state is this.

As is evident from the statement, the CDC didn’t alter the cycle threshold value for the PCR test used to identify presence of infection. The statement is relevant to genomic sequencing, which is an additional test used on samples that already tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. The reason why this guidance is in place is because genomic sequencing requires a relatively large amount of the virus’ genetic material in the sample. Therefore, a sample with only trace amounts of the virus’ genetic material, which would show a high Ct value, wouldn’t be suitable for sequencing.

Not sequencing a sample doesn’t change the fact that someone tested positive for COVID-19 by PCR, meaning that the person is infected, making them a COVID-19 case. Therefore, this CDC guidance has no influence on the number of COVID-19 cases recorded, as the article claimed.
[quote]

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If everyone knew this, there wouldn't be the imbeciles still applauding the insane emergency orders that are allowing governors and the like to implement oppressive policies based on these numbers.

They use it for fear-mongering, and then the willfully ignorant in society--which seems to be a large number of the population--lap it up like it's a fresh bowl of water and they are dehydrated dogs.

a reply to: nonspecific

It's at least somewhat true. While I have had numerous patients whose symptoms were definitely covid related, I also had a lot of patients who were there for other issues and tested positive. In today's world the data should be better organized.

It's inevitable that this will he happening but I can't see it's as the member suggests and to that level.


a reply to: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: BatSars

Let us not forget that in the US the CDC will not renew PCR testing for covid under EUA, so it begs the question what test was used then? Im starting to wonder if anyone has had covid.

Except you are wrong and fell prey to lies. They are discontinuing ONE PCR test panel, because newer PCR tests have been developed that can test for multiple virus. My hospital has long since moved on to a quad assay to find flu and covid. There are tons of PCR assays that will continue to get an EUA, here is a list of them all.
www.fda.gov... 940&ACSTrackingLabel=Lab%20Alert%3A%20Changes%20to%20CDC%20RT-PCR%20for%20SARS-CoV-2%20Testing&deliveryName=USCDC_2146-DM61940

I won't quote all of them because it's 5 pages worth of PCR tests that are approved.

I thought this was the case when I looked into it earlier but don't know enough to comment.

So when IMTAT said they were no longer going to be using PCR testing as it was useless and could not even differentiate between covid 19 and the flu that was not true?

This is them moving over to another type of PCR test that can be used to test for covid 19 AND influenza in the same sample and test?


.a reply to: OccamsRazor04

a reply to: nonspecific

It's probably more than you imagine. There's not a lot of beds devoted to Covid hospitalizations. We had every negative pressure room on all the floors everywhere being used primarily for patients who happened to also have covid. We turned whole floors of the psych hospital into a negative pressure floor for covid patients who were there for psych issues only.

a reply to: nonspecific

Absolutely. We stopped using the CDC assay a long time ago. We still have it available though and sometimes the Dr. will order it. I will immediately change it to the quad assay and let the Dr. know I fixed his mistake.

When it came out there was no alternative, it was needed. More flexible assays have since been created, so the original one is no longer needed. PCR is not going away, the original test was never 'bad' or inaccurate. We just have PCR tests now that can tell us more information and faster.

Here is a link to a quad assay.
www.cdc.gov...

Soo in other words the new test will find anything as long as is related to virus, how convenient wow, is just amazing what you can find this days with a test designed to find almost "anything" .

And the hospitalizations are avoided unless the person is found to have low oxygen in the blood and underlying health conditions, with the new summer common cold renamed to "delta covid" people are given antibiotics, anti inflammatory with stay at hone instructions of self quarantine.

Is amazing that people has forgotten how the common cold in the summer months hits a lot of people every year, but now is nothing but covid.

Deceptions.

That's interesting from my perspective working on a testing site then.

I'm sure IAMTAT will be most disappointed though.



a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Stop making things up.

It makes you look silly and when you do have something noteworthy to say no one will take any notice.



a reply to: marg6043