Coronavirus

[URL unfurl="true"]https://us.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-juan-williams-tests-001343026.html[/URL]

FYI
[HEADING=2]8 facts about the coronavirus to combat common misinformation[/HEADING]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/05/coronavirus-misinformation-facts/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https://s2.washingtonpost.com/car-ln-tr/2d51840/5fcbb9979d2fda0efb7fa0dc/5f04f9bb9bbc0f3a78904141/10/68/5fcbb9979d2fda0efb7fa0dc&fbclid=IwAR0IiqURhlOcQi0s2lg-vQ5jhZGpp_ZJj5dJ5HkGLZ0j7M2gIExRB99TdmM]('https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/05/coronavirus-misinformation-facts/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F2d51840%2F5fcbb9979d2fda0efb7fa0dc%2F5f04f9bb9bbc0f3a78904141%2F10%2F68%2F5fcbb9979d2fda0efb7fa0dc&fbclid=IwAR0IiqURhlOcQi0s2lg-vQ5jhZGpp_ZJj5dJ5HkGLZ0j7M2gIExRB99TdmM')

Jesus Christ could come back and put that out and some here and many others, Christians or not, would still not believe most of it.

Jesus Christ could come back and put that out and some here and many others, Christians or not, would still not believe most of it.

and yet there are many ridiculous things and conspiracies that the same type believe....astonishing!!

Riverhead Towns positivity rate has climbed to over 5% & is rising, Peconic Bay Hospital is seeing an increase in virus related admissions, & the towns Business Improvement District wants to have a large fireworks display on the riverfront New Years Eve. What am I missing here.
John

How can something listed as
Scientist believe and words like
Evidence strongly suggest
Be listed as facts

aren’t facts indisputable
Concrete and provable beyond doubt

Are you looking for facts along the line of "sunrise in the east, sunset in the west"? Would that help you?

[URL unfurl="true"]https://us.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-juan-williams-tests-001343026.html[/URL]

Oh, hope he recovers quickly...I like Juan, he gets so mad arguing with those fat heads on the Five.

The only thing I dont like about Juan is he roots for a football team that does not have a name.

Numerous epidemiological experts have argued that cycle thresholds are an important metric by which patients, the public, and policymakers can make more informed decisions about how infectious and/or sick an individual with a positive COVID-19 test might be. However, [as JustTheNews reports,]('https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/florida-requiring-labs-report-critical-cycle-threshold-covid-19-tests') health departments across the country are [failing to collect that data]('https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/state-health-departments-across-country-are-failing-collect-critical').

Here are a few headlines from those experts and scientific studies:

[1. Experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that conclude:“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus."]('https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/covid-19-rt-pcr-test-how-mislead-all-humanity-accepting-societal-lock-downs')
2. The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40: “With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT. [“And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “]('https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/covid-19-rt-pcr-test-how-mislead-all-humanity-accepting-societal-lock-downs')
3. An appeals court in Portugal has[ ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2]('https://www.zerohedge.com/political/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful'), and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.
4. A new study from [the Infectious Diseases Society of America]('https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603'), found that at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of PCR test "positives" are not "cases" since the virus cannot be cultured, it's dead. And by 35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical.
5. PCR is not testing for disease, it's testing for a specific RNA pattern and this is the key pivot. When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really "positives" in any clinical sense[U], since [/U][[U]it cannot make you or anyone else sick[/U]]('https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/pandemic-over-former-pfizer-chief-science-officer-says-second-wave-faked-false-positive')

This is why I have been saying the PCR testing is BS and reports too many false positives or more accurately non-clinical positives.
The ct threshold jacks up the case count.

you can read the links above from the NYT and other medical bodies.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data[/URL]

just announced this guys POSITIVE!

just announced this guys POSITIVE!

positively batshit crazy?

What happened to Rudy?

Are you looking for facts along the line of "sunrise in the east, sunset in the west"? Would that help you?

At least that’s a fact

This is why I have been saying the PCR testing is BS and reports too many false positives or more accurately non-clinical positives.
The ct threshold jacks up the case count.

you can read the links above from the NYT and other medical bodies.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/first-time-us-state-will-require-disclosure-pcr-test-cycle-data[/URL]

Since the "published papers" cited in the website you mention are NOT peer reviewed, but websites that anyone can "publish" to, there's limited scientific value to this argument. The Clinical Infectious Diseases Correspondence is just that, a letter to the Editor that is not reviewed. However the data are interesting, as it has always been a difficult exercise to equate PCR Cycle Thresholds (Ct) to infectivity.

AAMOF I don't know of ANY instance where the smallest Ct has been resolved to determine the "infectious dose" for ANY virus. "Cutoff" determinations for highly dangerous viruses like COVID-19, HIV, HBV, HCV, etc. are always done on the side of caution. Higher number of cycles with the absence of viral nucleic acids are highly suggestive the person is not infected/infectious. You have to ask yourself this, would you like a unit of blood that has some HIV RNA detected in it after 25 cycles, 30 cycles, 35 cycles, 40 cycles? I sure as hell wouldn't...

And there is a gross error in the text of the article, "And this same test is used for hospitalizations"... NOBODY gets admitted to the hospital solely on a PCR positive result with no extreme and life threatening clinical symptoms. If they did that, the hospitals would have been chock full months ago. All states report "New Positives as determined with PCR, Resolved Patients, Hospitalized Patients Patients in the ICU and Patients on Ventilators. As you go down the last three categories on that list are the smallest, and no where near the "New Positives" number.

If these authors would like to better defend their treatise that high Cts do not correlate to infectivity, a prospective studies following folks with high Cts over a couple of months would answer the question. They could track RT-PCR Cts over that time from swabs, Viral Antigen from swabs, and IgG and IgM results from blood samples, along with basic clinical symptoms. When all these test results are correlated you can start to have a true clinical picture of whether or not the higher Cts are irrelevant from a clinical perspective. Nothing in this package shows these type of data.

positively batshit crazy?

What happened to Rudy?

He wants the results overturned...says the test is rigged

Biden, 80 million followers...

[MEDIA=facebook]10216205172475656[/MEDIA]

Lol ?

Interesting and informative graphic from the NYTimes that emphasizes that there is no "One size fits all" panacea here...

Interesting and informative graphic from the NYTimes that emphasizes that there is no "One size fits all" panacea here...

Very interesting way to show it. It's like everything in life, do what you can to keep the risk level as low as possible with the tools available. The risk, getting sick, and what I put at the top of my concern list, spreading it unknowingly. The reward, not getting sick and not spreading it any further.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-legislature-shuts-down-rudy-050000846.html[/URL]