CDC to Replace Its PCR Test With One That Can Differentiate Between CCP Virus and Flu

a reply to: marg6043

I can’t speak for every health system. That’s just how our 9 hospitals operate. Then we take the swab, cartridge, and test kit and toss it in the biohazard trash. Which is then picked up and taken to an incinerator

s&f good post

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

You should read more. The PCR test in question can't detect flu, only covid. That's why it's being stopped in favor of multi assays that can detect the flu as well.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Why is it good when he is completely wrong about what he is reading?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Which is a good reason the original PCR test is phased out, and the newer multi assays are used.

First post is worst post!!
Guess who boight the new testing company?
Word on the street it was Gates and Soros.
Not sketchy at all.

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

Every single positive test associated with the PCR test should be tossed from the numbers. We already know that the way in which they used the test rendered them relatively useless in proving a positive test was actually the live, communicable SARS-CoV-2 virus, and many, many false positives were a result of that test.

As for LordAhriman's assertion, it's a bit misleading:

originally posted by: LordAhriman
The tests they're moving away from could only detect covid. If it came back negative, they would have to do another test to see if someone had the flu. ... Nowhere, anywhere, does it say that the old test was showing the flu as covid.

While the tests weren't counting COVID-19 as Influenza A or B, there's no where that shows that the labs were following up with flu tests if the COVID-19 tests came back negative. In fact, I know for certain that they did NOT do that in my wife's case--she had COVID-19 and got a false negative, and they didn't do any further diagnoses of anything. They literally just told her what it "might" be, and said to be glad that it's not COVID-19 (which it was, our whole house, including her, had it at the same time, and my test returned a positive result).

So, it's easy for the naysayers to make claims that "they would have to do another test," but that's just a blatant lie. The public health laboratories wouldn't "have" to do a damn thing that the patient didn't ask for or the doctor didn't order. And at the time (Jan '21), doctors were so inundated with COVID-19 patients that they barely had the time to deal with testing for COVID, let alone have the time to follow up on test results and then play Dr. House and investigate what a non-COVID illness might-maybe-could be.

This part of the link is very telling:

Reed did not reply to an inquiry on whether testing for the flu had stopped last year and that is why the CDC is now encouraging labs to adopt the multiplex tests. Nor did the health agency reply to an inquiry on what the cutoff cycle threshold value should be, considering that every manufacturer has its own cutoff value, many at 40 or more cycles.

Seems like they're wanting either hide that information at this moment, or simply don't know, both of which is rather alarming for the CDC to do. My money is that they don't know, but she could have just simply said, "We don't have that information at this time" to both scenarios and that would have been better than not responding.

In the meantime, we have to wait until DECEMBER of this year before that original PCR test pulled, so who knows how many more false positives will be happening in the interim. This is all adding up to a massive mishandling of this issue by the CDC, especially when it's coupled with all of the other issues coming out (severe side effects from the vaccines, the efficacy of the vaccines appearing to be worse than claimed, suppression of information regarding non-vaccine treatments, suppression of the efficacy of naturally derived immunity in those who have had COVID-19, constantly falsely claiming in gov't-sponsered ads and speeches that this vaccines is "proven safe and effective" while trying to guilt people into getting an experimental drug, etc.).

a reply to: network dude

He's full of sh!t, well, at least partially full...maybe 62%. For the reasons that I mention in my post above.

It's a pretty major BS comment when someone claims that the public health labs "would have to do another test to see if someone had the flu" if the COVID-19 test came back negative. What the data attests to is they just didn't follow up with anything, which left those with Influenza A or B undiagnosed--or worse, misdiagnosed if it came up as a false positive.

Like I mentioned, all numbers related to the PCR test in question should be removed from the data set since we know that the accuracy of them is highly suspect.

That's a lateral flow test not PCR.



a reply to: MykeNukem

What's the reported accuracy of PCR in the US?

I'm assuming a broad average given the many and varied systems used by different labs?


a reply to: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Mandroid7
First post is worst post!!
Guess who boight the new testing company?
Word on the street it was Gates and Soros.
Not sketchy at all.

Except that is a LFT test, which is not being talked about here. The PCR test being phased out is being replaced by other PCR tests.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, where I work a positive PCR test is validated by a positive IGG test. They remain on precautions until they test positive for antibodies. You can't get antibodies unless you have had a covid infection. So while there certainly have been a few instances where we had a positive PCR that never yielded a positive IGG, it was pretty rare. In fact I can only think of it happening twice.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
a reply to: LordAhriman

Why don't you explain it then? I don't do Reddit.

They came up with a new test that can detect covid and influenza. The tests they're moving away from could only detect covid. If it came back negative, they would have to do another test to see if someone had the flu. It saves time and money to do a 2 for 1 test, so they're recommending everyone start using the new test as we move into flu season. Nowhere, anywhere, does it say that the old test was showing the flu as covid. It's not possible. Influenza viruses have very little in common and covid PCR tests are looking for a very specific rna that has nothing in common with a flu virus.

so if what you say is true, then we have eliminated the flu totally from our society and no longer need to worry about it. This new test is pointless. Unless you are full of sh!t.

I do question the "no flu" thing..I find it very hard to believe..but I'm uneducated, so just my gut feeling

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: network dude

He's full of sh!t, well, at least partially full...maybe 62%. For the reasons that I mention in my post above.

It's a pretty major BS comment when someone claims that the public health labs "would have to do another test to see if someone had the flu" if the COVID-19 test came back negative. What the data attests to is they just didn't follow up with anything, which left those with Influenza A or B undiagnosed--or worse, misdiagnosed if it came up as a false positive.

Like I mentioned, all numbers related to the PCR test in question should be removed from the data set since we know that the accuracy of them is highly suspect.

Every negative Antigen test we run, we perform a separate PCR confirmation test.
We have performed hundreds of flu tests as well but I did notice a dramatic drop off in the frequency of orders for them.
We also have had hundreds of patients we have swabbed for covid, flu, and strep as well.

I couldn’t answer as to why the physicians were ordering so many fewer flu tests than prior years nor why they weren’t ordered along side EVERY covid screen

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, where I work a positive PCR test is validated by a positive IGG test. They remain on precautions until they test positive for antibodies. You can't get antibodies unless you have had a covid infection. So while there certainly have been a few instances where we had a positive PCR that never yielded a positive IGG, it was pretty rare. In fact I can only think of it happening twice.

I’d like to see this practice implemented more. We have antigen tests, PCR, and both antibody tests and we almost never run the antibody tests on anyone. To me it’s just weird.

Well, that sucks that the test couldn't tell between the flu and the SARS-CoV2. The treatment is different for those two, the virus that causes covid-19 has a papain class protease enzyme to gain entrance to cells, the flu doesn't. So how many people were treated incorrectly? How come they didn't check for this before they approved it and promoted it's use?

Oh yeah, it was government agencies that messed things up, they can mess up a wet dream.

You've misunderstood as has the OP.

The newer PCR tests are multi function they will he able to use one swab and sample to test for multiple viruses as opposed to just covid 19.



a reply to: rickymouse

a reply to: rickymouse

This is why fake news OPs are bad. OP is wrong. The original test only came positive if you had Covid. If you had the flu, the PCR would read negative, then they would do another PCR for the flu.

Long ago better assays came out that tested for multiple infections. If you have covid AND the flu, both would be positive. If you have covid OR the flu then it will only read positive for what you have.

So the new assays allow for quicker diagnosis times with fewer tests.

And I bet a lot of the people kicking off are the same ones claiming most or all covid cases were not covid but the flu as well.

I wonder how they will spin round a test that will clearly show when it's flu not covid as a bad thing.



a reply to: OccamsRazor04

a reply to: nonspecific

The problem is not the flu was diagnosed as covid, the problem was people could have had both, and the flu was the cause of their symptoms, and they did not get the proper treatment. That is why my hospital long ago moved to a quad assay.