Fauci and CDC sued for Crimes Against Humanity

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   51 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 51 total)
  • Wed, May 19, 2021 - 09:57pm   (Reply to #24)

    #31
    coh

    coh

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 141

    count placeholder1

    Fauci fleeiing

Coh: I added an edit to say the veracity of the info was in question. You know.. perhaps take with a grain of salt.

I don’t think there is a grain of salt that is large enough. Some stuff is just crap.

  • Thu, May 20, 2021 - 12:04am   (Reply to #21)

    #32
    davefairtex

    davefairtex

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2521

    count placeholder2

    still think CT is the important variable

If we had the CT value in that meta analysis, I’m guessing that the statistical analysis when using the CT value could be useful in coming up with the answer to the key question: “what’s a meaningful CT value in determining when a particular ‘positive’ actually relates to an amount of virus that represents something of danger to the patient?”

Right now, since (most likely) all the studies had different CT values, it isn’t surprising that the meta analysis was unable to come up with a conclusion.  There’s a “free variable” in there that is confusing everything.

I think this statement also needs consideration of not only whether the “positive test” indicates a patient that needs treatment or not, but also whether that positive test is a case that is able to infect others by shedding the virus. Also, the conclusions of the meta-analysis should also be applied to the negative result. “Eighteen studies reporting different sampling methods suggest that for virus tests, the type of sample obtained/type of tissue sampled could influence test accuracy”. The potential for false negatives is there as well.

Yeah.  My conclusion is: its a mess.  Looking into the HIV world:

Article on CT for HIV PCR tests in babies: I see the number “33”.  Best not to miss  a positive baby.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5625627/

Here’s another one on using PCR testing for HIV-2: the CT range is 23-28.  I think they are trying to avoid false positives here.

http://hivtestingconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/11_Jagodzinski.pdf

These approaches all look very orderly and scientific.  The approach we have now for SC2?  It just feels different.

Its not as if the concept of CT is unknown to those of ordinary skill in the art.  But – for some reason – for testing SC2, its like “Science” forgot about it entirely.

 

  • Thu, May 20, 2021 - 10:09pm

    #33
    ChrisKaz

    ChrisKaz

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 09 2020

    Posts: 22

    count placeholder2

    Reply To: Fauci and CDC sued for Crimes Against Humanity

Hi Dave,

Short answer is that there cannot be “one Ct value to rule them all” as it depends a LOT on the assay design. Just one factor is the application efficiency as shown in this chart:

 

Figure 5. Variation of Ct with PCR efficiency. The blue standard curve has an efficiency of 100% (the slope is –3.3). The green standard curve has an efficiency of 78% (the slope is –4). Amplification of quantity Y gives an earlier Ct under low efficiency conditions (green) compared to the high efficiency condition (blue). With a lower quantity (X) there is an inversion and the low efficiency condition (green) gives a later Ct than the high efficiency condition (blue).

Second the FDA website here:

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-devices/sars-cov-2-reference-panel-comparative-data#table2a

shows 117 tests, which they are comparing to one another with a standard reference panel they all have to run. So are ALL these tests using high CT values? Are they all different as they should be and seem to be based onto table 2A results? The answer is not so simple, and find it a pretty big assumption to think that all these are treated the same and have the same issues.

Check out this validation for example: https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

They have a lot of Cts >30 in the data tables and it certainly seems believable to me.

One thing that is concerning however, is the suggestion in Chris’ latest video that the CT value may be changed for breakthrough determination. I agree wholeheartedly with Chris that if the Ct was set for a particular test at say 37, then it should stay there. Although one comment by one official should not carry a huge amount of weight and be chalked up to incompetence until it can be more definitively proven.

Thanks for the discussion.

Chris

  • Fri, May 21, 2021 - 07:43am

    #34
    davefairtex

    davefairtex

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2521

    count placeholder1

    what Ct level is “correct”?

After reading this document here:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/main/2020/09/cycle-threshold-values-sars-cov2-pcr.pdf?la=en

I saw something that appealed to my common sense:

[Note: the document didn’t recommend this; they just mentioned the phenomenon in passing]

For a PCR test to be diagnostically useful, the “correct” CT level is the maximum level at which you can successfully culture the virus – say, 90% of the time – for whatever machine you are using.   This varies by machine (a point or two in either direction), and sample, as you have pointed out.

If you aren’t able to culture the virus from the “positive” sample, then I’m going to claim that there is no diagnostic value to such a “positive” reading, and the CT level should be dropped until they find the level at which they can do so more often than not.

As you mentioned, I found it interesting that the “vax breakthrough” Ct level is substantially lower than it was for other tests.   Perhaps you can explain this?  See article at the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

And, piling on: the CDC has now decided to only count breakthrough cases when they are hospitalized.  Already-vaccinated outpatients with positive PCR tests & symptoms – they aren’t considered to be breakthrough cases.

It made me wonder – what the numbers would look like if CDC only counted hospitalizations as COVID “cases”?

Total hospitalizations to date: 776k.  Total positive tests to date: 28,756k.  Call it a factor of 37.

  • Fri, May 21, 2021 - 08:57am   (Reply to #34)

    #35
    ChrisKaz

    ChrisKaz

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 09 2020

    Posts: 22

    count placeholder1

    Fauci and CDC sued for Crimes Against Humanity

I would caution against linking PCR to viral culture as they are two different techniques each with their own considerations and success rates due to completely different reasons. Both could differ from lab to lab etc. It’s just not that simple, as much as everybody wants to make it so.

We are 100% in agreement that the rules should not change for calling a case and calling a breakthrough case, and of course this is fodder for those who choose to think there is some grand orchestration to all this.

Personally I apply Hanlon’s razor to most things like this: Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity or incompetence.  With dozens of different PCR tests that should have different cutoffs, how can anyone be sure that this number is now changed.  Maybe the problem is that a person can get different tests depending on where they get tested. Again, not ideal, and a mess, but not malice or intentional as was the initial topic of this post to which I decided to speak up about.

  • Fri, May 21, 2021 - 09:17am   (Reply to #34)

    #36
    Kathy

    Kathy

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 21 2020

    Posts: 342

    count placeholder7

    Fauci and CDC sued for Crimes Against Humanity

Personally I apply Hanlon’s razor to most things like this: Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity or incompetence.  With dozens of different PCR tests that should have different cutoffs, how can anyone be sure that this number is now changed

When does incompetence turn to malice?  At the beginning of all of this I have to agree that we had a fair amount of confusion and incompetence.  Now when we have the “experts” banning perfectly safe drugs, pushing vaccines and then changing the definition of “case” to get the results they want it tips into malice.

  • Fri, May 21, 2021 - 09:42am

    #37
    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 730

    count placeholder5

    Fauci and CDC sued for Crimes Against Humanity

Kathy,

You wrote:

When does incompetence turn to malice?

I think that there is another issue.

The way our government/media complex operates is by “narrative spinning” instead of “truth telling.”

Narrative spinning is their basic modus operandi. They use it as to everything, not just Covid 19.

“Narrative spinning” constitutes dishonestly. It is a turning away from truth to achieve hidden objectives based upon 1) the promotion of selected facts, 2) the suppression of facts inconsistent with the selected narrative and 3) the censorship of those seeking a full exploration of the issue under consideration.

So, yes, there is incompetence.

But dishonesty as a modus operandi is itself malicious.

What we are seeing is a system which may include incompetence, but is actually malicious to the core by the virtue of the very way that it operates.

  • Fri, May 21, 2021 - 10:55am

    #38

    Jim H

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1440

    count placeholder4

    Narrative spinning…

Remember how everything Hitler did was, “legal”….  well here’s a blast from the recent past NJ Mike, and notice that the referenced author, Hastings, died later in a very questionable auto accident after telling friends he felt in danger;

In 2013 Obama Legalized The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public

  • Fri, May 21, 2021 - 11:11am

    #39
    davefairtex

    davefairtex

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2521

    count placeholder0

    what does “positive” mean?

Chris-

I would caution against linking PCR to viral culture as they are two different techniques each with their own considerations and success rates due to completely different reasons. Both could differ from lab to lab etc. It’s just not that simple, as much as everybody wants to make it so.

So if your box returns a “positive” value for a test at your selected threshold, but the virus cannot be cultured, you maintain that this is still a threat to the patient?

Put differently – do you have evidence that “positive” samples, which were not able to be cultured, have ended up hospitalizing or killing some significant number of people?

I mean, that’s the “gold standard”, right?

Certainly if you provide such evidence, I’ll be compelled to agree with you.

  • Fri, May 21, 2021 - 11:19am

    #40

    Jim H

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1440

    count placeholder4

    I am upping my Vitamin D to 10,000 IU daily

Absurdly, some 15 months into the crisis, we finally get some more definitive data that says very high levels of Vitamin D sufficiency (they gave 60,000 IU doses daily!) result in marked reductions in inflammatory markers with ZERO side effects.  Published yesterday. Duh;

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-90189-4#Tab6

The difference in the reduction of markers between the groups (NVD vs VD) was highly significant (p < 0.01). Therapeutic improvement in vitamin D to 80–100 ng/ml has significantly reduced the inflammatory markers associated with COVID-19 without any side effects. Hence, adjunctive Pulse D therapy can be added safely to the existing treatment protocols of COVID-19 for improved outcomes.

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 51 total)

Login or Register to post comments