COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

[McLaren]

Here is Dr Mike Yeadon explaining it for you.

This channel has a video about Bill Gates' chip vaccination from 2 months ago.


Verified stupidity on that alone.

The real danger to humanity is obedient fools who don’t question authority and attack those who do.

Verified irony while we're at it.

 

[Blitz24]

Number of those dead might be similar, but the factors for them are not. All you are doing is replacing those in car crashes (and the like) with people dying from COVID-19.

 

[kikie]

This youtube channel is a very interesting channel regarding SARS-CoV-2.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF9IOB2TExg3QIBupFtBDxg

I hope this time my posts won't be deleted.

 

[jjaisli]

...no point trying to show you the truth, have fun obeying your programming like little obedient cowards...[/MEDIA]

If I only had a nickel for every clever guy who tried to show me "the truth" with a YouTube video (and a not so hidden agenda).

 

[Danoff]

Lazy? No idea why you bring that in. Maybe it is, but deaths has the distinct advantage of the total numbers being absolute and accurate, and is of course the main thing that restrictions are attempting to reduce.

That other deaths are down slightly this year only adds to how many excess deaths there are due to COVID, however, since that difference is small compared to COVID deaths (and mostly within year-to-year variation) it's reasonable to ignore it for the most part.

I don't think it is, because it leads people to the false conclusion that COVID isn't a real issue, in part, because other deaths are reduced and taking up the slack, in part, because of the measures being taken to avoid COVID. Those people would have us eat all of the COVID losses PLUS all the normal ones.

What else could it be? For all these peoples talk of false positives and herd immunity (now there's a paradox!) etc etc, I haven't yet heard any remotely viable alternate explanation for the excess deaths.

I'm saying even if there is no excess, one would still need to look at the cause or source of the statistics.

Lazy:
- Observation: Deaths are only up some.
- Conclusion: COVID is overblown, we should ditch the masks and distancing.

Less Lazy:
- Observation: Deaths are up some.
- Observation: COVID deaths are up a ton
- Observation: Flu, traffic, and other kinds of deaths are down some, making the overall death rate look less severe than COVID would otherwise.
- Conclusion: The measures we're taking to fight COVID are saving not just lives lost to the pandemic, but other lives as well. Masks and distancing are critical.

And of course there are even more observations to be had about hospital staffing, long term effects for people who recover, costs of recovery, and the disruption of lives for being hospitalized or incapacitated.

 

[Outspacer]

I don't think it is, because it leads people to the false conclusion that COVID isn't a real issue, in part, because other deaths are reduced and taking up the slack, in part, because of the measures being taken to avoid COVID. Those people would have us eat all of the COVID losses PLUS all the normal ones.



I'm saying even if there is no excess, one would still need to look at the cause or source of the statistics.

Lazy:
- Observation: Deaths are only up some.
- Conclusion: COVID is overblown, we should ditch the masks and distancing.

Less Lazy:
- Observation: Deaths are up some.
- Observation: COVID deaths are up a ton
- Observation: Flu, traffic, and other kinds of deaths are down some, making the overall death rate look less severe than COVID would otherwise.
- Conclusion: The measures we're taking to fight COVID are saving not just lives lost to the pandemic, but other lives as well. Masks and distancing are critical.

And of course there are even more observations to be had about hospital staffing, long term effects for people who recover, costs of recovery, and the disruption of lives for being hospitalized or incapacitated.

Granted, I get the angle and there are lots of observations that can be made. In particular that dips in 'normal' deaths also occur alongside and following lockdown and restrictions.

However, we're not only looking at "deaths are only up some", rather that UK deaths were roughly double the normal rate at the peak in spring, and recently been 20 to 25% above with restrictions in place, even without allowing for the 'normal' rate being subdued. With those numbers it's clear enough to say that something quite major and out of the ordinary is going on, without needing to go into the details of what else is reduced.

My recent posts, at least, have been addressing claims about testing inaccuracy. Maybe it is lazy to go straight to the most reliable statistic there is, but from experience I know that an essay of a post will get cherry picked and mostly ignored. Remember it's arguing against someone who probably doesn't believe that COVID deaths are actually nearly all "from COVID" deaths. How much effort do you think that warrants?!

 

[Danoff]

Granted, I get the angle and there are lots of observations that can be made. In particular that dips in 'normal' deaths also occur alongside and following lockdown and restrictions.

However, we're not only looking at "deaths are only up some", rather that UK deaths were roughly double the normal rate at the peak in spring, and recently been 20 to 25% above with restrictions in place, even without allowing for the 'normal' rate being subdued. With those numbers it's clear enough to say that something quite major and out of the ordinary is going on, without needing to go into the details of what else is reduced.

My recent posts, at least, have been addressing claims about testing inaccuracy. Maybe it is lazy to go straight to the most reliable statistic there is, but from experience I know that an essay of a post will get cherry picked and mostly ignored. Remember it's arguing against someone who probably doesn't believe that COVID deaths are actually nearly all "from COVID" deaths. How much effort do you think that warrants?!

It's definitely fair to say that the premise (that deaths aren't up) can be proven wrong.

 

[TB]

My wife got a call an hour or so ago. They wanted her to be in at 6:45 tomorrow morning for her vaccine shot. She has something scheduled for 7:00 so she had them move her to 4:00 tomorrow afternoon.

I'll report back it she grows any new appendages or anything.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not wanting to be outdone by the superb British (huzZAH!) the French have decided to give Macron coronavirus too. A day late and a soupçon short, but they're trying.

Here's a true story: yesterday a joiner was here to do some work and he was explaining to me that Brexit can't come quickly enough because then we'll be able to control our own health systems and get Covid back under control. I just boggled slightly and couldn't find the energy to take his thoughts on. Are people really cross-pollinating these horrendous ideas and finding the resultant triffids perfectly acceptable? I can answer my own question - yes, yes they are.

 

[T_revisio]

The WHO have provided a welcome update notice on PCR testing protocols, to reduce the incorrect reporting of infection, when a high cycle threshold achieved the result:

https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users

 

[TenEightyOne]

The WHO have provided a welcome update notice

Welcome to who, as it were?

 

[Famine]

The WHO have provided a welcome update notice on PCR testing protocols, to reduce the incorrect reporting of infection, when a high cycle threshold achieved the result:

https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users

Cool. It's like day one on the first module of an molecular biology undergraduate course.


Incidentally, whoever's responsible for your cropped screenshot - which isn't the World Health Organisation, despite the attempt to present it as being so - is wrong. It literally doesn't work that way.

Edit: Lol. Reading the original German interview, he's not saying that PCR generates lots of false positives, but pointing out that case statistics increase rapidly if you test lots of people and they're relatively healthy but positive, or even mild cases, compared with only reporting serious and terminal cases - while cautioning that the media needs to do a better job of reporting the differences.

Talk about cherry-picking!

 

[T_revisio]

Cool. It's like day one on the first module of an molecular biology undergraduate course.


Incidentally, whoever's responsible for your cropped screenshot - which isn't the World Health Organisation, despite the attempt to present it as being so - is wrong. It literally doesn't work that way.

The explanation in the attachment is direct from Dr. Drosten, not me. Feel free to explain how he is wrong. I’m open to all views.
https://g.co/kgs/oc2kcH

 

[Touring Mars]

The accuracy issues with PCR tests have been known for years... but I don't see how it changes the reality that hospitals across the world are currently facing, which is an overwhelming number of clinically diagnosed COVID cases.

We've already covered this earlier in the thread, but the idea that false positives are driving the case numbers has been roundly debunked... a quick look at the numbers in the US for example clearly shows that the rise in positive test results cannot possibly be driven by false positives. Since the start of October, the US has increased testing from around 1 million tests per day to almost 2 million per day (a less than 2 fold increase)... meanwhile, positive test results have increased from less than 50000 a day to over 200000 a day, which is over 4 times as many cases.

Testing (of any description) cannot account for the observed increases in hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths either - a point even Yeadon cannot explain, though his assertion that it 'must be something other than COVID' is bizarre.

Even Yeadon's own logic trips him up. He has repeatedly stated that "no-one knows the operational false positive rate of PCR tests", and that this means that PCR testing is useless. However, he adds that, according to his own logic, if the oFPR is unknown, then "it could be zero" or it could be 100% (it's not). Hmm, OK. So, what he is saying is that the oFPR could actually be zero, but yet PCR tests are "useless".

The trouble is, he extends his logic to breaking point by saying that PCR tests are useless because the oFPR is unknown, but in the same breath states that PCR testing is generating massive numbers of false positives! Wait a minute... how does he know that? He's literally just said that the oFPR is not known.

 

[MaxAttack]

The explanation in the attachment is direct from Dr. Drosten, not me. Feel free to explain how he is wrong. I’m open to all views.
https://g.co/kgs/oc2kcH

Open to all views unless they come from governments or healthcare organisations, that is.

Or if too many other people hold them and they become consensus.

Or if someone won't give up a sizable portion of a working day to watch a video.

Or if I don't like it, or it gives me a bad feeling, or I just feel like being different.

Other than that, all views.

 

[T_revisio]

The accuracy issues with PCR tests have been known for years... but I don't see how it changes the reality that hospitals across the world are currently facing, which is an overwhelming number of clincally diagnosed COVID cases.

We've already covered this earlier in the thread, but the idea that false positives are driving the case numbers has been roundly debunked... a quick look at the numbers in the US for example clearly shows that the rise in positive test results cannot possibly be driven by false positives. Since the start of October, the US has increased testing from around 1 million tests per day to almost 2 million per day (a less than 2 fold increase)... meanwhile, positive test results have increased from less than 50000 a day to over 200000 a day, which is over 4 times as many cases.

Testing (of any description) cannot account for the observed increases in hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths either - a point even Yeadon cannot explain, though his assertion that it 'must be something other than COVID' is bizarre.

Even Yeadon's own logic trips him up. He has repeatedly stated that "no-one knows the operational false positive rate of PCR tests", and that this means that PCR testing is useless. However, he adds that, according to his own logic, if the oFPR is unknown, then "it could be zero" or it could be 100% (it's not). Hmm, OK. So, what he is saying is that the oFPR could actually be zero, but yet PCR tests are "useless".

The trouble is, he extends his logic to breaking point by saying that PCR tests are useless because the oFPR is unknown, but in the same breath states that PCT testing is generating massive numbers of false positives! Wait a minute... how does he know that? He's literally just said that the oFPR is not known.

Given the acknowledged issues with interpretation of pcr test results, why on earth do we continue to use pcr at all, when a far cheaper, faster rapid antigen test is available ?

When a reliable memory T Cell Test is available, that will vastly improve our understanding of immunity and the true risk profile of the virus. Until then, we don’t really know and are constantly bombarded with over hyped fear messaging designed by behavioural psychologists.

 

[eran0004]

Here is Dr Mike Yeadon explaining it for you.

Well, if the pandemic in the UK ended after the summer, what is this other virus that spreads among the population and that happens to have the exact same symptoms? And why shouldn’t this new virus warrant a lockdown?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-55101148

 

[T_revisio]

Open to all views unless they come from governments or healthcare organisations, that is.

Or if too many other people hold them and they become consensus.

Or if someone won't give up a sizable portion of a working day to watch a video.

Or if I don't like it, or it gives me a bad feeling, or I just feel like being different.

Other than that, all views.

I’ve literally quoted an update notice from the World Heath Organsation, how can you possibly justify that attack ? Please check before making false accusations, it’s getting boring.

 

[Famine]

The explanation in the attachment is direct from Dr. Drosten, not me. Feel free to explain how he is wrong. I’m open to all views.
https://g.co/kgs/oc2kcH

Oooh, an actual doctor this time! Also:

Edit: Lol. Reading the original German interview, he's not saying that PCR generates lots of false positives, but pointing out that case statistics increase rapidly if you test lots of people and they're relatively healthy but positive, or even mild cases, compared with only reporting serious and terminal cases - while cautioning that the media needs to do a better job of reporting the differences.

Talk about cherry-picking!

The quote-pull is part of a newspaper interview in German; yes, I bothered to look it up, unlike apparently everyone quoting it on "plandemic" Twitter.

Even assuming the quote to be intact from the interview, the English translation of just that sentence isn't quite right (looks like a Google Translate job to me) and is entirely stripped of the context of the rest of what he's said - which is that Saudi media needed to do a better job of reporting the differences between positive mild cases and positive serious cases rather than conflating the two.


Edit: extra-lol at the guy who decided to insult everyone on the site as ignorant sheep for no other reason than nobody agreeing with him immediately now complaining about an "attack" on his character...

 

[Touring Mars]

Given the acknowledged issues with interpretation of pcr test results, why on earth do we continue to use pcr at all, when a far cheaper, faster rapid antigen test is available ?

Because there are known issues with antigen tests as well. What is the oFPR of the antigen test? What is the oFNR of the antigen test?

When a reliable memory T Cell Test is available, that will vastly improve our understanding of immunity and the true risk profile of the virus. Until then, we don’t really know and are constantly bombarded with over hyped fear messaging designed by behavioural psychologists.

Testing is only one way of identifying cases - clinical diagnosis does not require any test. I haven't heard Yeadon explain what he thinks is happening in US hospitals right now other than his frankly bizarre (and in many way, quite insulting) hypothesis that 'it is not COVID'.

 

[T_revisio]

Oooh, an actual doctor this time! Also:

The quote-pull is part of a newspaper interview in German; yes, I bothered to look it up, unlike apparently everyone quoting it on "plandemic" Twitter.

Even assuming the quote to be intact from the interview, the English translation of just that sentence isn't quite right (looks like a Google Translate job to me) and is entirely stripped of the context of the rest of what he's said - which is that Saudi media needed to do a better job of reporting the differences between positive mild cases and positive serious cases rather than conflating the two.


Edit: extra-lol at the guy who decided to insult everyone on the site as ignorant sheep for no other reason than nobody agreeing with him immediately now complaining about an "attack" on his character...

How do you justify correctly identifying, like others before me, that this specific thread on the virus is not the place for open discussion, with “insulting everyone on this site” ? That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think ?
Today I shared an update notice directly from the world health organisation, yet look at the response. If you had shared the same information, would the response have been different ?

 

[Barra333]

Given the acknowledged issues with interpretation of pcr test results, why on earth do we continue to use pcr at all, when a far cheaper, faster rapid antigen test is available ?

That is quite an insult to the molecular biologists who have been working with rtPCR and qPCR for years now. A lot of calibration goes into the protocols to obtain accurate ct numbers. I have no idea what your field of expertise is, but I'm going to assume that PCR interpretation was only added in the last 6 months.

And as Touring Mars alluded to, and was discussed some time ago in this thread, the false negatives that come from some antigen tests are far more damaging that the false positives that might come from the PCR test. The worst that happens with a false positive is that someone needlessly spends two weeks on the couch, a false negative leaves a potentially infectious person out in the wild to spread it.
On that thought, sign me up for a false positive...

EDIT:

Today I shared an update notice directly from the world health organisation,

Which any experienced rtPCR user would look at and say something along the lines of 'yeah, I know'.

 

[Touring Mars]

How do you justify correctly identifying, like others before me, that this specific thread on the virus is not the place for open discussion, with “insulting everyone on this site” ? That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think ?
Today I shared an update notice directly from the world health organisation, yet look at the response. If you had shared the same information, would the response have been different ?

It was pretty clear that the response was about your comment that you are "open to all views" and not the WHO link you shared.

 

[UKMikey]

How do you justify correctly identifying, like others before me, that this specific thread on the virus is not the place for open discussion, with “insulting everyone on this site” ? That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think ?

This is you insulting everybody on this site for not watching a three and a half hour video:

Seriously, it’s like you guys enjoy being terrified by completely normal hospitalisation and death numbers. Do you enjoy horror movies ?

As I said, this obviously is not a place to openly discuss reality, you are all too far gone down the illusion trap, due to not looking at all available information.

When you’ve watched Dr. Mike Yeadon, who is Ex Pfizer, talk on it for 3.5 hours, then you will have more information upon which to base your opinions and decisions. Until then, you are limiting the information that you use and are therefore under informed. You don’t know better than Mike Yeadon, do you ? Thought so. Goodbye, no point trying to show you the truth, have fun obeying your programming like little obedient cowards, the most dangerous form of human life to my children’s future.

Were you to address the quote mining that @Famine repeatedly pointed out in your WHO post perhaps you'd understand why no one (other than one poster)'s taking your posts seriously.

 

[Famine]

How do you justify correctly identifying, like others before me, that this specific thread on the virus is not the place for open discussion, with “insulting everyone on this site” ? That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think ?

Oh you mean when you called everyone "obedient little cowards" and said they were "the most dangerous form of human life" you weren't being insulting?

Novel approach. Can't see it working out for you.

Today I shared an update notice directly from the world health organisation, yet look at the response. If you had shared the same information, would the response have been different ?

I wouldn't have shared it. It's literally a notice that says "when doing PCR tests, do the number of cycles it says in the instructions". Any lab tech that needs to be told that needs a slap and a demotion, though I'd be surprised they could punch in the right door code to get into the labs anyway.

I also wouldn't have then tried to present a screenshot from what I'd guess to be a COVID conspiracy source that misrepresents an unreferenced quote from a 1:1 Google Translate result, stripped of its context (which was about Saudi media not differentiating positive test numbers from seriously ill cases, not about how bad PCR is), alongside it with no further information, as if it were part of the WHO update.


You're clearly approaching this whole issue from one angle: that COVID-19 is either a hoax or a conspiracy (or both), and not as bad as some diffuse "authority" (media? Government?) says it is.

You're taking on board only sources which agree with you - which use tactics of obfuscation, cherry-picking and straight up lies - and holding up people's qualifications (wrongly, in the case of Ivor Cummins, who has no doctorate and is a diet shill) as authorities only when they are in agreement with you, while denying others who don't agree with you as being simply part of the conspiracy machine. Like the doctor you called a fool and an obedient little coward in this thread.

That's not open-mindedness. It's about as closed as it gets. You already know the truth as you see it and won't entertain any possibility that you're wrong - despite apparently having less knowledge about PCR than a molecular biology undergraduate at the end of his first week at university.


An unwillingness to think critically, examine sources, change views based on evidence, and discuss without demonising or insulting those who don't agree... now that is a threat to children's futures, especially if children are being taught those behaviours.

 

[T_revisio]

Oh you mean when you called everyone "obedient little cowards" and said they were "the most dangerous form of human life" you weren't being insulting?

Novel approach. Can't see it working out for you.

I wouldn't have shared it. It's literally a notice that says "when doing PCR tests, do the number of cycles it says in the instructions". Any lab tech that needs to be told that needs a slap and a demotion, though I'd be surprised they could punch in the right door code to get into the labs anyway.

I also wouldn't have then tried to present a screenshot from what I'd guess to be a COVID conspiracy source that misrepresents an unreferenced quote from a 1:1 Google Translate result, stripped of its context (which was about Saudi media not differentiating positive test numbers from seriously ill cases, not about how bad PCR is), alongside it with no further information, as if it were part of the WHO update.


You're clearly approaching this whole issue from one angle: that COVID-19 is either a hoax or a conspiracy (or both), and not as bad as some diffuse "authority" (media? Government?) says it is.

You're taking on board only sources which agree with you - which use tactics of obfuscation, cherry-picking and straight up lies - and holding up people's qualifications (wrongly, in the case of Ivor Cummins, who has no doctorate and is a diet shill) as authorities only when they are in agreement with you, while denying others who don't agree with you as being simply part of the conspiracy machine. Like the doctor you called a fool and an obedient little coward in this thread.

That's not open-mindedness. It's about as closed as it gets. You already know the truth as you see it and won't entertain any possibility that you're wrong - despite apparently having less knowledge about PCR than a molecular biology undergraduate at the end of his first week at university.


An unwillingness to think critically, examine sources, change views based on evidence, and discuss without demonising or insulting those who don't agree... now that is a threat to children's futures, especially if children are being taught those behaviours.

I acknowledge that you have to be super careful these days about posts on this site, regarding the virus.

However, this is a discussion forum. Not an echo chamber of closed minds that attacks anyone posting information that they do not like.

Yes, I was being insulting to the small group of closed minds in this thread, not everyone on the site, which is what you falsely accused me of. Unquestioning obedience of an inflated fear narrative designed by applied behavioural psychologists is not just foolish, it is a crime that my children will pay dearly for.

I don’t really care about the classic attempts to insult me, for “daring“ to question the almighty pcr test, that appears to have reached religious worship levels here, despite the world health organisation’s recent update notice regarding the false positive non infectious “cases” and Dr Fauci explaining that over 35 amplification cycles gives “garbage” results. There is literally no way PCR can be relied upon to alert us to “outbreaks of cases”. Just use a better test. That is literally all that I came here to say.
It’s just very sad that there is a way back to normal, by correctly identifying the infectious cases with tests other than pcr, which is instantly rejected here as soon as it is mentioned.

I know that I’m not the only one to have experienced this treatment, simply for asking a straightforward question in this thread.

 

[polysmut]

Until then, we don’t really know and are constantly bombarded with over hyped fear messaging designed by behavioural psychologists.

Unquestioning obedience of an inflated fear narrative designed by applied behavioural psychologists is not just foolish, it is a crime that my children will pay dearly for.

Who are these behavioural psychologists?
What's the narrative they're pushing?
Why are they doing that?

 

[Touring Mars]

I acknowledge that you have to be super careful these days about posts on this site, regarding the virus.

However, this is a discussion forum. Not an echo chamber of closed minds that attacks anyone posting information that they do not like.

Yes, I was being insulting to the small group of closed minds in this thread, not everyone on the site, which is what you falsely accused me of. Unquestioning obedience of an inflated fear narrative designed by applied behavioural psychologists is not just foolish, it is a crime that my children will pay dearly for.

I don’t really care about the classic attempts to insult me, for “daring“ to question the almighty pcr test, that appears to have reached religious worship levels here, despite the world health organisation’s recent update notice regarding the false positive non infectious “cases” and Dr Fauci explaining that over 35 amplification cycles gives “garbage” results. There is literally no way PCR can be relied upon to alert us to “outbreaks of cases”. Just use a better test. That is literally all that I came here to say.
It’s just very sad that there is a way back to normal, by correctly identifying the infectious cases with tests other than pcr, which is instantly rejected here as soon as it is mentioned.

I know that I’m not the only one to have experienced this treatment, simply for asking a straightforward question in this thread.

Except you're not just 'asking a straightforward question', are you? You're pushing pseudoscientific bunk in order to downplay the seriousness (and even existence of) the pandemic, which was (rightly) called out and questioned... at which point, instead of answering questions about your comments, you throw insults and attack the very process of questioning that you pretend to champion.

Perhaps if you practiced what you preach, and showed a little bit more respect and common courtesy in your posts, you wouldn't be getting such a hard time. But rest assured that dodgy claims, pseudoscientific nonsense and conspiracy theorist BS will always be called out, and it shouldn't matter where - it should always be called out. Or is questioning that not allowed?

 

[Famine]

I acknowledge that you have to be super careful these days about posts on this site, regarding the virus.

Do you? Okay then.

However, this is a discussion forum. Not an echo chamber of closed minds that attacks anyone posting information that they do not like.

Hey, remember who the first - and only - person in this discussion thread to attack someone posting information that they do not like was? Let me give you a clue: "obedient little cowards".

Yes, I was being insulting to the small group of closed minds in this thread

Currently numbering one.

not everyone on the site, which is what you falsely accused me of.

Uh-huh.

Unquestioning obedience of an inflated fear narrative designed by applied behavioural psychologists is not just foolish, it is a crime that my children will pay dearly for.

Is it your contention that the entire COVID-19 situation is "an inflated fear narrative designed by applied behavioural psychologists"? Only... wow. That's... wow. To what end?

Making up your mind and sticking rigidly to it, abusing those in authority who don't agree with you and lauding those in perceived authority who do, being incapable of independent thought and capable of only parroting views expressed for you in videos with a vested interest in keeping you stupid... that's going to harm your kids way more than being aware of pathogens. Especially if you're teaching them that.

It took 30 seconds to find the German source for the quote you didn't even question, and it revealed the real context and meaning. Whoever presented it to you as being critical of PCR lied to you (or, at best, were lied to by a previous person, and passed it on in a similarly uncritical manner), and you didn't even blink - because it agreed with what you already thought based on apparently very little knowledge of PCR.

And you want your kids to go through life like that, never investigating sources and allowing themselves to be tricked and lied to by predators. Amazing.

I don’t really care about the classic attempts to insult me

Again, insulting behaviour is unique to you at this point.

for “daring“ to question the almighty pcr test, that appears to have reached religious worship levels here

Where?

despite the world health organisation’s recent update notice regarding the false positive non infectious “cases”

Which notice? The one you posted was an instruction to run the right number of cycles.

Why is a "non-infectious case" (also, what is a "non-infectious case"?) a false positive? A false positive is when someone is not positive for the virus but actually has a viral infection. Oddly, the rapid antigen test returns that result about 12% more often than the PCR test.

and Dr Fauci explaining that over 35 amplification cycles gives “garbage” results

No ****? Turns out if you pour 1.5 litres of water into a litre bottle, you spill some.

Again, this is literally basic PCR knowledge. If not day one, then at least week one of first year, first semester molecular biology.

There is literally no way PCR can be relied upon to alert us to “outbreaks of cases”. Just use a better test. That is literally all that I came here to say.

Okay. Let's magic one up.

It’s just very sad that there is a way back to normal, by correctly identifying the infectious cases with tests other than pcr, which is instantly rejected here as soon as it is mentioned.

I don't know who said that or where.

I know that I’m not the only one to have experienced this treatment, simply for asking a straightforward question in this thread.

Your straightforward questions (and misconceptions) were answered. You then went to:

I cannot identify any logical reason to continue using PCR, unless the goal is to create false positives and thereby false cases.

While describing PCR as "easily manipulated" (it's not particularly easily manipulated; it's easily screwed up by contaminants though), and posting a video by a man you claimed is a doctor but isn't, who has been peddling conspiracy about COVID throughout because he wants to sell his diet products.


Seems like all you came here to say was tired old conspiracy drivel. And no, this isn't the thread for that, though we do have a conspiracy drivel thread.

 

[Barra333]

However, this is a discussion forum. Not an echo chamber of closed minds that attacks anyone posting information that they do not like.

You will find plenty of open minded people here. When they are presented with unbiased sources.

Unquestioning obedience of an inflated fear narrative designed by applied behavioural psychologists is not just foolish, it is a crime that my children will pay dearly for.

We might need a source on that one. A source that isn't there just to drive a narrative

I don’t really care about the classic attempts to insult me, for “daring“ to question the almighty pcr test, that appears to have reached religious worship levels here, despite the world health organisation’s recent update notice regarding the false positive non infectious “cases” and Dr Fauci explaining that over 35 amplification cycles gives “garbage” results. There is literally no way PCR can be relied upon to alert us to “outbreaks of cases”. Just use a better test. That is literally all that I came here to say. It’s just very sad that there is a way back to normal, by correctly identifying the infectious cases with tests other than pcr, which is instantly rejected here as soon as it is mentioned.

There are at least 2 people with PhDs and one with a masters in relevant fields who have posted in the last few hours alone. They are following their educational knowledge, not anything that has been written in the media or blogs. Nobody has denied that the false positive rate goes up once the PCR cycle number gets too high, but where do you draw that line? Pick a number between about 28 and 35. The lower the number you pick, the more false negatives you will get, the higher you pick, the more false positives. See my self-quote below.
It is a very good, and very sensitive technique, but nobody is claiming it is perfect

...the false negatives that come from some antigen tests are far more damaging that the false positives that might come from the PCR test. The worst that happens with a false positive is that someone needlessly spends two weeks on the couch, a false negative leaves a potentially infectious person out in the wild to spread it.