What test will repl...
 
Notifications
Clear all

What test will replace PCR test in december?

18 Posts
8 Users
12 Reactions
4,273 Views
Posts: 2
Topic starter
(@spazatak)
Joined: 3 years ago

07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Hello new here..

 

Anyone know what new test will replace the flawed PCR test driving this hysteria?

Thanks

17 Replies
Posts: 615
 jmc
(@jmc)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reading the CDC notice it looks like they going to fold the SARs CoV 2 RT/PCR test into the standard influenza test panel. Which is done as part of the influenza monitoring  system. The standalone emergency test reagent is being withdrawn. 

Now the interesting thing is with this particular EUA withdrawn will the approved (and legal) clinical diagnosis process return to what it was prior to March 2020. Any molecular test like RT/PCR being purely confirmation tests in high probability high prevalence scenarios.  Not when used as mass screening test. The PCR test works as a reasonable (and very fast / cheap) proxy test for an active infection only in situations where the patent has strong  clinical symptoms of respiratory infection (like cloudy chest x ray etc). If just non specif mild symptoms (or no symptoms) the PCR test results mean nothing. Just random noise. Mathematically speaking. 

Reply
7 Replies
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 847
Posted by: @jmc

Reading the CDC notice it looks like they going to fold the SARs CoV 2 RT/PCR test into the standard influenza test panel. Which is done as part of the influenza monitoring  system. The standalone emergency test reagent is being withdrawn. 

Now the interesting thing is with this particular EUA withdrawn will the approved (and legal) clinical diagnosis process return to what it was prior to March 2020. Any molecular test like RT/PCR being purely confirmation tests in high probability high prevalence scenarios.  Not when used as mass screening test. The PCR test works as a reasonable (and very fast / cheap) proxy test for an active infection only in situations where the patent has strong  clinical symptoms of respiratory infection (like cloudy chest x ray etc). If just non specif mild symptoms (or no symptoms) the PCR test results mean nothing. Just random noise. Mathematically speaking. 

Writing "mathematically speaking" doesn't mean there is any mathematical content to your explanation.

 

Reply
 jmc
(@jmc)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 615

@onion 

Well we have covered the subject to death in the past. Maybe you missed it.

Basically if error rate of the test is less than the prevalence of what you are testing for then more true positives than false positives will result. If error rate greater than prevalence then more false positives than true positives. 

The prevalence of SARs CoV 2 in any group when PCR is used as a mass screening test will be at least an order of magnitude less that real world error rate. So most positives are false positives. 

The PCR test is purely a molecular test and during an active infection of typical 10 to 14 days duration the probably viral density in a typical test swap being detectable consistently is from around Day 3 to Day 7.  So the true positive is less than 50%. In some test subjects detectable amounts of viral material can persistent for weeks / months after the end of active infection.

The PCR is a proxy test not an actual test for active infection like antigen tests. So it is only valid in high prevalence test scenarios. Which is how it was used before March 2020. First moderate / serious symptoms, then bloods tests and chest x-ray, then the PCR test to confirm which infectious agent is the culprit.  Because by that stage its a probability high prevalence test scenario. 

Starting to see the problem?

Generally clinical tests must have true positives of at least 90% and false positives of 5% to be used in clinical diagnosis. Not less than 50% true positives and greater than 90% false positives.   So most positive test results are false positives and the majority of active infections are not actually detected at screening time. So thats why its basically random noise, mathematically speaking. Or a de-facto stochastic process, to be technical.

Reply
(@superunknown)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 7

@jmc I would just like to add for simplicity, as you quite rightly point out-
"The PCR is a proxy test not an actual test for active infection like antigen tests"

It can also detect a genetic signature even if the person has had the virus and is no longer infected, but will still show as positive.

Such as using a primer for blonde hair, then using another primer for blue eyes, if you were to test one hundred samples you could correctly identify which people had the above traits. However, it would still do so even if the samples collected were from corpses that had perished decades earlier. In which case, they HAD blonde hair and blue eyes.

This is the main reason why PCR is no good as a test for active viruses, unless it is used in conjunction with other methods, such as does the patient have symptoms? Has the patient had serology to identify possible pathogens? In the majority of positive test results, no further action has been taken, a missed opportunity to test the subjects at a later date to check for possible immunity, which is the only viable point of something like "track & trace" that I can think of.

Reply
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 847
Posted by: @jmc

@onion 

Well we have covered the subject to death in the past. Maybe you missed it.

Basically if error rate of the test is less than the prevalence of what you are testing for then more true positives than false positives will result. If error rate greater than prevalence then more false positives than true positives. 

The prevalence of SARs CoV 2 in any group when PCR is used as a mass screening test will be at least an order of magnitude less that real world error rate. So most positives are false positives. 

The PCR test is purely a molecular test and during an active infection of typical 10 to 14 days duration the probably viral density in a typical test swap being detectable consistently is from around Day 3 to Day 7.  So the true positive is less than 50%. In some test subjects detectable amounts of viral material can persistent for weeks / months after the end of active infection.

The PCR is a proxy test not an actual test for active infection like antigen tests. So it is only valid in high prevalence test scenarios. Which is how it was used before March 2020. First moderate / serious symptoms, then bloods tests and chest x-ray, then the PCR test to confirm which infectious agent is the culprit.  Because by that stage its a probability high prevalence test scenario. 

Starting to see the problem?

Generally clinical tests must have true positives of at least 90% and false positives of 5% to be used in clinical diagnosis. Not less than 50% true positives and greater than 90% false positives.   So most positive test results are false positives and the majority of active infections are not actually detected at screening time. So thats why its basically random noise, mathematically speaking. Or a de-facto stochastic process, to be technical.

Yes Yes you have said this several times, but it's just garbage.

Do you know the definition of false positive rate?

Look it up and your reasoning will crumble, once you apply your mighty mathematical skills to the subject.

 

Reply
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 591

@onion JMC engages in discussion, quoting date. You do nothing but abuse without engaging in debate.

You are the reason why the govt wishes to criminalise online anonymity. 

It's a shame they haven't done so already; you'd be a wonderful embarrassment to Tony Blair's institute or the student wing of the World Economic Fascists or even Independent Sage (such irony in the words...)

Reply
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 847
Posted by: @coronanationstreet

@onion JMC engages in discussion, quoting date. You do nothing but abuse without engaging in debate.

You are the reason why the govt wishes to criminalise online anonymity. 

It's a shame they haven't done so already; you'd be a wonderful embarrassment to Tony Blair's institute or the student wing of the World Economic Fascists or even Independent Sage (such irony in the words...)

Making numbers up isn't "quoting data"

Reply
pre-Boomer Marine brat
(@pre-boomer-marine-brat)
Joined: 2 years ago

Posts: 1

@jmc ... "(with no symptoms) the PCR test results mean nothing"  ...  That's true, except for the past 23 months, they've been used as "proof" that the tested person is "ill" with COVID.

Decades ago, the mantra was "Zero Population Growth".  They'd have loved COVID and PCR.  It would have convinced the pure-of-heart cognoscenti that half of humanity would be dead within a week.

Reply
Posts: 591
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 4 years ago

I suppose the flippant answer to the original question is "prison".

Testing will be stopped for those "fully jabbed" (fluid definition). Anyone else will be imprisoned until they submit to being "fully jabbed".

Reply
4 Replies
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 319

@coronanationstreet you are starting to understand, the general public will not be symied by cranks with weird beliefs. And hence the public will make it hot for you. And you are getting hot, we'll see what you can take in the fullness of time. It will be an interesting test for you and us.

 

Reply
(@superunknown)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 7

@ewloe Unfortunately, unlike you soft conformist types, who like to suck at the teet of nanny establishment, there are real lunatics that prefer the course of direct action, call them what you will, but they do exist, and pushed far enough they will snap.

By the way, is there any pertinent reason why you're mate onion keeps changing it's name? Decepticon tactics or split personality?

I note that neither of you have challenged the true use of PCR, as defined and used by many actual qualified people, and instead decided to go down the route of deflection, as your beloved government is doing, reasons?

PCR was never developed as a test for live viruses, prove me wrong. 

Reply
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 319
Posted by: @superunknown

@ewloePCR was never developed as a test for live viruses, prove me wrong. 

I think it amplifies genetic material in a straightforward way, whether live or otherwise, not sure what you are driving at there? wrt onion, i have not noticed anything. wrt:real lunatics,  what do they do when they snap, as you put it? Do they recover after they have snapped?

Reply
(@spazatak)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 2
Posted by: @coronanationstreet

I suppose the flippant answer to the original question is "prison".

Testing will be stopped for those "fully jabbed" (fluid definition). Anyone else will be imprisoned until they submit to being "fully jabbed".

I hope your wrong, but considering we are only a month away your guess might be correct.

Anyone have a link to the discussion I missed?  Thanks

 

 

Reply
Posts: 42
(@impobs)
Joined: 3 years ago
Reply
Posts: 847
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 3 years ago

If you can't convince someone with the opposite opinion, then there is little point in publishing your views. Sure you will please your own tribe, but that doesn't advance your cause.

 

Reply
1 Reply
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 319
Posted by: @willing-vaccinee

If you can't convince someone with the opposite opinion, then there is little point in publishing your views. Sure you will please your own tribe, but that doesn't advance your cause.

 

The  problem  is that the site  has become  a cloning  device that churns out copies of the universal  lockdownsceptic (a type of mindless zombie). The universal  lockdownsceptic automatically distrusts any infomation supplied by any part of the government, i.e. from the government itself, ONS, PHE, SAGE, Big Pharma,   JCVI, HMRA, WHO, UKHSA,NHS, Any University, etc. The Universal lockdown sceptic  disbelieves and  disobeys any guidance from those groups.

So the forum here has no job, the vast majority of the posters are already Universal lockdown sceptics, that is why it is impossible to oppose e.g. ImpObs, he has proposed nothing but to let it rip, and that just is not going to happen.So the site is saturated with clones on ImpObs, so nothing can be accomplished. They all believe Ernst Stavro Blofeld is injecting the populations with graphene in order to kill them all. No joke, they all believe this. 

 

on the other hand, the vast majority of people are not universal  lockdownsceptics evinced by the high vaccine uptake, but once you are a universal  lockdownsceptic you are esentially a mindless zombie .

 

Reply
Page 1 / 2
Share:
May 2024
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Free Speech Union

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Create New Account!

Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.