Asymptomatic spread is a LIE. Even though it is from China, the Nature Comm. paper indicating that asymptomatic spread was extremely rare seems to be legit
If even one in the pool is positive, the pool is positive. So quite improbable that all would be negative.
Edit: I think I see what you're saying .. that each in a pool had the same odds of positive as the entire population did. I didn't read it that way. I read it as all in those pools had already tested positive. Then retested. So most should have been positive again. Certainly at least one.
99.5% of pools were negative meaning that zero positives.
A pool has 0.05% of having 1 or more positive case in it.
The chances of having 2 or more positive cases would have to be smaller than 0.05% - so really really low. Safe to estimate that it's most likely 1 positive case per pool
I read it a few more times and decided there is no reason for me to assume that the entire pool was positive. So yeah. Likely only 10 positives to start with. And when retested, none of those 10 were positive.
That's still highly unlikely and thus noteworthy. But you're right (I think) that it's just 10 and not 48. Thx.
Actually, the sleezy framing might be better for demonstrating that it’s extremely difficult to check for the virus without detecting the flue instead.
Yes, this data reads an average of 4.8 swabs per pool and 10 pools with positive samples, which could mean 1+ per pool (could calculate the range but not enough info). Either way, this is potentially 10 - 50 false positives, not 9000 because you have 1927 pools with negative results from onset (1927 pools x 4.8 people per pool = 9250 negative tests). While I agree with the implication (testing lacks sensitivity and asymptomatic people do not have or spread covid), this data is not presented accurately.
You know something is not right when standards for the number of cycles to run the PCR test were never set. A symptomatic viral load should be found in 25,000 cycles or less. Most of these tests are running at 35,000 to 40,000 cycles, finding "bits" of virus that cannot make you sick. It's a damning indictment of the health officials running this show, but it sure corroborates its role in the Great Reset.
I’m sure the standard are different for every machine/lab. The whole point of PCR is to amplify genetic sequences and inform you of the presence of said sequence or not. It doesn’t say anything about viral load and no medical professionals are using PCR that way- it’s simply a rapid and cheap test that gives doctors an idea of whether someone may be infected or not. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that PCR tests are being using to amplify insignificant viral loads to tell patients “you’ve got the covid!” when that isn’t their purpose at all.
I haven’t seen or read any papers on exactly what viral load determines symptomatic vs asymptomatic vs early infection, but the amount of virus you have changes with the course of infection. So I’m not quite sure where you’re getting the idea that PCR mainly serves to amplify asymptomatic viral loads, since this likely differs for various patient demographics. I think that it’s important to rule out false positives, but detecting and treating early infections is important as well.
THERE IS NO PUBLICLY DEFINED STANDARD FOR AMPLIFICATIONS IN PCR TESTS.
THIS MEANS WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY AMPLIFICATIONS ARE BEING USED TO ARRIVE AT THE TEST RESULTS.
ANYTHING BELOW 30 WILL RESULT IN NO POSITIVES AT ALL, ANYTHING BETWEEN 35 AND 40 WILL RESULT IN MANY FALSE POSITIVES. ANYTHING ABOVE 40 WILL RESULT IN EVERY TEST BEING POSITIVE.
THE LABS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REVEAL THE NUMBER OF AMPLIFICATIONS USED FOR A POSITIVE TEST RESULT, NOR ARE THEY REQUIRED TO USE A STANDARD NUMBER.
THIS MEANS THE LABS CAN TUNE RESULTS UP OR DOWN AS NEEDED WITH ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT OR ACCOUNTABILITY
My daughter got covid from a presymptomatic friend (friend got symptoms after they spent a day together w other friends). My daughter and six other friends who were with the presymptomatic friend ended up testing positive four to six days later at different testing locations and w different methods (saliva/nose). My daughter had no symptoms but some of her friends did, and a few of their families got really sick. My daughter and her friends all tested negative between 2-7 days after their positive tests. Anecdotal yes, but a demostration that presymptomatic spreads. But I guess that's not technically asymptomatic.
My question re this post is: Were the negative Cambridge tests taken a few days afte the positive ones, or were they given two tests on the same day? If taken the same day, the poster has a point. If taken later, the virus count had probably just decreased to a level where it wasn't measurablem
I am sorry to hear your daughter and her friends had CV-19, that some were symptomatic and their families got very sick. I pray all are recovered and well now.
Having issues signing on; so I apologize for the delayed response. Apparently Cambridge University is performing weekly testing on students residing on campus, as part of their ‘Safe’ program. Testing
Asymptomatic spread is a LIE. Even though it is from China, the Nature Comm. paper indicating that asymptomatic spread was extremely rare seems to be legit
Whatever they were, they were a psyop against the West. A successful one.
Are you calling Frauci a liar? He says asymptomatics spread the disease between 25-40% of the time. He also says HCQ is unsafe.
Fao Xi was probably taking HCQ as he was making those ridiculous statements. Fao Xi is the epitome of a Doom Cough.
That's a curious way to say '10'.
Of the 10 positive tests, all turned out to be false positives.
Still meaningful without the sleazy framing.
10 pools, right? Not 10 tests. 10 pools is 48 tests. So 0 of 48 positives were actually positive. I think that's a noteworthy observation.
missed the pool distinction.
However is a 'pool' positive when all tests are or when any 1 test is?
Any one, from what the notes said.
right, thanks.
So statistically highly improbably there would be more than 1 occurrence within same pool given percentage of pools that turned up positive.
10 cases.
If even one in the pool is positive, the pool is positive. So quite improbable that all would be negative.
Edit: I think I see what you're saying .. that each in a pool had the same odds of positive as the entire population did. I didn't read it that way. I read it as all in those pools had already tested positive. Then retested. So most should have been positive again. Certainly at least one.
99.5% of pools were negative meaning that zero positives.
A pool has 0.05% of having 1 or more positive case in it.
The chances of having 2 or more positive cases would have to be smaller than 0.05% - so really really low. Safe to estimate that it's most likely 1 positive case per pool
I read it a few more times and decided there is no reason for me to assume that the entire pool was positive. So yeah. Likely only 10 positives to start with. And when retested, none of those 10 were positive.
That's still highly unlikely and thus noteworthy. But you're right (I think) that it's just 10 and not 48. Thx.
Actually, the sleezy framing might be better for demonstrating that it’s extremely difficult to check for the virus without detecting the flue instead.
Perhaps the doctor who authored the tweet I shared, wanted to be as hyperbolic as the media is. 🤷🏻♀️
It's also important to note that only 10 had false positives out of the greater pool, while 0 were true positive. Everyone else was negative.
Yes, this data reads an average of 4.8 swabs per pool and 10 pools with positive samples, which could mean 1+ per pool (could calculate the range but not enough info). Either way, this is potentially 10 - 50 false positives, not 9000 because you have 1927 pools with negative results from onset (1927 pools x 4.8 people per pool = 9250 negative tests). While I agree with the implication (testing lacks sensitivity and asymptomatic people do not have or spread covid), this data is not presented accurately.
You know something is not right when standards for the number of cycles to run the PCR test were never set. A symptomatic viral load should be found in 25,000 cycles or less. Most of these tests are running at 35,000 to 40,000 cycles, finding "bits" of virus that cannot make you sick. It's a damning indictment of the health officials running this show, but it sure corroborates its role in the Great Reset.
I’m sure the standard are different for every machine/lab. The whole point of PCR is to amplify genetic sequences and inform you of the presence of said sequence or not. It doesn’t say anything about viral load and no medical professionals are using PCR that way- it’s simply a rapid and cheap test that gives doctors an idea of whether someone may be infected or not. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that PCR tests are being using to amplify insignificant viral loads to tell patients “you’ve got the covid!” when that isn’t their purpose at all.
I haven’t seen or read any papers on exactly what viral load determines symptomatic vs asymptomatic vs early infection, but the amount of virus you have changes with the course of infection. So I’m not quite sure where you’re getting the idea that PCR mainly serves to amplify asymptomatic viral loads, since this likely differs for various patient demographics. I think that it’s important to rule out false positives, but detecting and treating early infections is important as well.
.3% positive? Correct me, but isn’t that 3/1000? With over a 99.99% recovery rate? Wtf do we need a vaccine for? This isn’t polio or smallpox.
That's not data, that's terrorism.
THERE IS NO PUBLICLY DEFINED STANDARD FOR AMPLIFICATIONS IN PCR TESTS.
THIS MEANS WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY AMPLIFICATIONS ARE BEING USED TO ARRIVE AT THE TEST RESULTS.
ANYTHING BELOW 30 WILL RESULT IN NO POSITIVES AT ALL, ANYTHING BETWEEN 35 AND 40 WILL RESULT IN MANY FALSE POSITIVES. ANYTHING ABOVE 40 WILL RESULT IN EVERY TEST BEING POSITIVE.
THE LABS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REVEAL THE NUMBER OF AMPLIFICATIONS USED FOR A POSITIVE TEST RESULT, NOR ARE THEY REQUIRED TO USE A STANDARD NUMBER.
THIS MEANS THE LABS CAN TUNE RESULTS UP OR DOWN AS NEEDED WITH ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT OR ACCOUNTABILITY
The responses to that tweet are giving me cancer. Morons.
What am I missing? I don’t see that in the document. I see a false positive rate of 1 in 373.
My daughter got covid from a presymptomatic friend (friend got symptoms after they spent a day together w other friends). My daughter and six other friends who were with the presymptomatic friend ended up testing positive four to six days later at different testing locations and w different methods (saliva/nose). My daughter had no symptoms but some of her friends did, and a few of their families got really sick. My daughter and her friends all tested negative between 2-7 days after their positive tests. Anecdotal yes, but a demostration that presymptomatic spreads. But I guess that's not technically asymptomatic.
My question re this post is: Were the negative Cambridge tests taken a few days afte the positive ones, or were they given two tests on the same day? If taken the same day, the poster has a point. If taken later, the virus count had probably just decreased to a level where it wasn't measurablem
I am sorry to hear your daughter and her friends had CV-19, that some were symptomatic and their families got very sick. I pray all are recovered and well now.
Having issues signing on; so I apologize for the delayed response. Apparently Cambridge University is performing weekly testing on students residing on campus, as part of their ‘Safe’ program. Testing