Covid 19 testing for a virus

a reply to: ZeussusZ

Probably because they want to jack the numbers up to push draconian measures and steal our freedoms.

Completely separate problem from whether the tests work.

a reply to: ZeussusZ

Now do they have covid 19 with no symptoms or just infected with sars-cov2? Why do all cases syptomatic or not are classed as covid 19?

Don't forget about the 3rd option: False Positive.
ie No Covid, No Sars. Just a test that tells lies.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ZeussusZ

Probably because they want to jack the numbers up to push draconian measures and steal our freedoms.

Completely separate problem from whether the tests work.

Indeed.
Whether the tests work or not wasn't really the question.
The reporting of cases seems to include people that don't have covid19.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The test is 4 primers at 25 base pairs each. Only one primer had to hit. That is nothing. They did this to pretend they were meeting the standards.

The HPV is the “gold standard” for PCR is 200 base pairs on one primer.

These tests dont tell if you are infected or have ever been infected. Your body could have fought it off without any intrusion and it’s dead viral particles that are triggering it.

Now if they are run at the proper CT you can infer infectivity but even then it doesn’t guarantee it.

Not that any of these tests are being run correctly. Maybe if they reported CT, but that’s not happening.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What they appear to say in that statement is that PCR can only tell you if you have the virus in your body

What they appear to say in that statement is that PCR can only tell you if you have a virus in your body .
You were one little word off .
And I am not even sure about that .

a reply to: BrokenCircles

Basically a 0% chance, not exactly zero, but pretty close to it. False negatives are far far more common than a false positive.

a reply to: Gothmog

False. The virus. It will not tell you if you have a virus, it will tell you whether you have the virus you are specifically tested for, which is why the CDC prefers multi-assays that can test for multiple virus with 1 swab, otherwise you may have influenza, test negative for covid, and now that patient needs to get tested again needlessly.

a reply to: Extremistcontent

The only thing I need reply to know you are wrong is the fact the positive PCR yields a positive IgG proving it was correct.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gothmog

False. The virus. It will not tell you if you have a virus, it will tell you whether you have the virus you are specifically tested for, which is why the CDC prefers multi-assays that can test for multiple virus with 1 swab, otherwise you may have influenza, test negative for covid, and now that patient needs to get tested again needlessly.

SO you have been told , yes ?
Hint : Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see .

a reply to: Gothmog

False. I'm an RN. I swab for covid all the time, every pt needs one before procedures. I have covid currently. I have first hand experience with the testing and results.

Hint: Don't believe bitchute, they lie. The results I see every single day have no explanation other than the PCR test works exactly as intended. It does not pick up 'anything'. It does not give false positives commonly, in fact false negatives are semi common, false positives are basically unheard of, I have only seen 1 false positive, but false negatives are common enough we isolate patients and treat it as covid if we suspect it even if they test negative.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

what are you talking about? that doesn't even make sense.

originally posted by: Extremistcontent
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

what are you talking about? that doesn't even make sense.

If you don't understand how the IgG proves the PCR you shouldn't be posting on the subject.

a reply to: ZeussusZ

Because most people can't comprehend that the covid 19 and the SARS-CoV2 are different illnesses. So they make it sound like everyone is getting covid 19 to make people more fearful. Our bodies can fight off the virus with immunity to any coronavirus we have, such as the common cold immunity which attacks the coronavirus itself to stop it from being able to attack us. The test tests for the spike protein, if the coronavirus is destroyed in the nose, the spike protein could still be present in the mucous. So remember this, a test is not good evidence that you have immunity to the spike protein when it is taken in or on the nose. You can test positive and still not have an infection because your immune chemicals in the muccous already killed the virus. Upon multiple exposures, the immune system will also build immunity to the spike protein eventually to give full coverage and to test positive for antibodies to the spike protein.

This is a big deceptive mess, the CDC and NIH are not telling the whole truth and are twisting science to fit their desire to make us fear and promote dependence on them. Sounds like the alchemists of old that they burnt at the stake over the centuries for doing the same kind of thing.

a reply to: rickymouse

Pretty much 100% wrong. Sars causes covid. The test does not look for the spike protein, which is why the vaccine does not yield a positive PCR. I think literally every single part of your post is wrong, I can't find anything you said that is accurate, other than them promoting fear.

The PCR test looks for the RNA of the SPIKE protein. If it looked for the RNA of a coronavirus you would get a positive test from a coronavirus cold. The portion of the RNA they are looking for is of the spike protein.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm an RN. I swab for covid all the time

I.E , you do as you were told and how you were told .
I don't fault that , at all .
Do you have a degree in epidemiology ?
Or something in that field ?

a reply to: rickymouse

actually the PCR doesn't test for spike, in the US the primers are for the Nucleocapsid protein, I don't think any of the rest of the world test for it

It should be testing for spike, but then all the vaxxed would test positive, and it would show how much shedding is taking place, can't have that

www.centerforhealthsecurity.org...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Your post was utter nonsense, how does a PCR yield a positive IgG, they are completely separate tests. Sorry I couldn't translate your lack of communication.

But no, you're not right. Unless you are talking about very low CT counts, which is what I said. BUT THAT IS NOT HAPPENING ANYWHERE.

You literally restated what I stated, but didn't grasp the nuance because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

I'll restate for the record.

If you have a low cycle count, 28 at max, but many are saying it should be far lower than that, you can infer infectivity. You would follow that up with other tests like IgG to confirm. But you can NEVER confirm infectivity with a PCR on its own, and anything above the low threshold is absolutely useless.

But lets just listen to what CDC director Walensky has to say about it shall we?

On why a negative test is not required to leave isolation, Walensky said PCR tests would "not be viable" because they can detect remnants of the virus for up to 12 weeks, even after a person is no longer contagious.

www.cbsnews.com...

Can you grasp this? It always detects remnants of the virus, regardless of infectivity. This is exactly what I posted earlier, but again your RN isn't adequate to overcome your ignorance.

a reply to: ZeussusZ

The PCR tests cannot detect infection, and Kary Mullis who invented them said so many times before his death in 2019.

The Plandemic would never have worked without those tests. They are good tests, but they are not meant to detect infection of any sort. As the package insert says, "not to be used for diagnostic purposes".

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm an RN. I swab for covid all the time

I.E , you do as you were told and how you were told .
I don't fault that , at all .
Do you have a degree in epidemiology ?
Or something in that field ?

Ummm you clearly don't know much about nursing or RNs. I override the Doctors all the time and the Doctors quickly learn which RN knows their stuff and will defer to RNs all the time when they trust them. You're clueless. I didn't realize it required a degree in epidemiology to read a test result, are you saying you can't tell the difference between 'positive' and 'negative'?