Study shows that PCR tests with 35 cycles or more have an accuracy below 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.

[DannyTS]

Current number of excess deaths since a year ago February, somewhere between 478,927 and 594,204. If you check the number of total deaths above average by cause (such as respiratory disease chiming in at about 6,000 more deaths than expected), you will see that these numbers do not add up to anywhere near the above totals. That is because most of the covid deaths were not co-listed, but simply listed as covid deaths. The biggest category, by far, where there was an increase in excess deaths was with Alzheimer's disease (about 45,000 more than expected). Why? Nursing homes were especially hard hit with covid and many Alzheimer's patients are in nursing homes.

Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

Figures present excess deaths associated with COVID-19 at the national and state levels.

www.cdc.gov

The bottom line is I just don't see how too many amplifications of PCR cycles producing false positives can account for so many excess deaths over the last year.

Like @rickandcindy23 's MIL (if I understood and remember correctly), we might have had a lot of lockdown deaths not caused by the virus but by the circus around it. I hope you will agree that the circumstances were very unusual last year: canceled surgeries and tests (200,000 surgeries cancelled in Canada last year) , screenings, people going to the hospital too late with hearth attacks or seizures. Not to mention drug abuse and death related to poverty. People also need optimism and reasons to live, there are studies that prison reduces the life expectancy significantly. Those lost screening will also cause premature deaths in the months and years to come. I do not know about the US but in Canada it is rather hard to see a family doctor in person, unless they think you have a very good reason to see one. Many people told me they GAVE up seeing a doctor. In their case, luckily, the problems went away (or so they think) but statistically that should not always be the case unfortunately.

California and Florida have similar numbers. If the virus was as infectious and as dangerous as we were told, Florida's numbers would be a lot higher especially with a large older population.

 

["Roger"]

I think if you applied your critical thinking skills to your own views, you would realize that your response is pretty weak. Rather than looking at things objectively, you're set on defending a view and then look for whatever you can to support it (with a ton a "maybe's" thrown in).

I'll be bowing out so you will have the last word. In closing, I will mention that I regularly talk to a local med tech and he says the literature says that when a PCR is mistaken, it is almost always a false negative, not a false positive. The USAToday fact check article that I referred you to the other day said the same thing. Heart attack numbers are only minimally up as are many other diseases (as found on the dashboard referred to above). Have a nice day.

 

[DannyTS]

I think if you applied your critical thinking skills to your own views, you would realize that your response is pretty weak. Rather than looking at things objectively, you're set on defending a view and then look for whatever you can to support it (with a ton a "maybe's" thrown in).

I'll be bowing out so you will have the last word. In closing, I will mention that I regularly talk to a local med tech and he says the literature says that when a PCR is mistaken, it is almost always a false negative, not a false positive. The USAToday fact check article that I referred you to the other day said the same thing. Heart attack numbers are only minimally up as are many other diseases (as found on the dashboard referred to above). Have a nice day.

They are using the same method so they will always come to the same falty conclusion. They are technically not wrong when they call them "positive" if by positive is whatever the machine tels them after 40 amplifications. Do you realize they do not say "infectious" or that they detect "active" virus? Because that would be a lie, what they detect is either a potent virus OR fragments of a distroyed virus that the body has anihilated a long time before and that happens when the CT number is high. Send your local med tech this graph (sorry for butchering it but I do not know how to make it any clearer). Ask them how many amplifications (Ct cycles) they normally use. If more than 30 you will know where you are on the graph. Ask them about its significance and how you should interpret it, how clinicians should take it into account. You will have a more meaningful discussion than "positive" or "negative".

Concerning the heart atack deaths, if some of them have been coded as "covid", how would their total be up in the official numbers?

 

[DannyTS]

I think if you applied your critical thinking skills to your own views, you would realize that your response is pretty weak. Rather than looking at things objectively, you're set on defending a view and then look for whatever you can to support it (with a ton a "maybe's" thrown in).

I'll be bowing out so you will have the last word. In closing, I will mention that I regularly talk to a local med tech and he says the literature says that when a PCR is mistaken, it is almost always a false negative, not a false positive. The USAToday fact check article that I referred you to the other day said the same thing. Heart attack numbers are only minimally up as are many other diseases (as found on the dashboard referred to above). Have a nice day.

Or you can send your local med tech this article that explains very clearly. I do not know why people have been under a spell and they do not seem to acknoledge this:


"Regarding infectiousness, the PCR test is not designed to identify active infectious disease but rather genetic material (dead, alive or partial) from the virus. PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19, so while it often identifies people with active, infectious disease, it can also indicate people as “positive” erroneously. Dead COVID-19 RNA in the nose or mouth of someone who was never sick could create a positive PCR result. Recovered patients who test negative and are non-infectious can still come up positive repeatedly in the following months. These are neither new cases nor infectious ones needing quarantine but could be incorrectly counted as such."

Appropriate use of PCR needed for a focused response to the pandemic

The WHO’s guidance on the RT-PCR test emphasizes two things that have long been known in the scientific literature and public health practice but inexplicably ignored in COVID policy for almost a y…

thehill.com

 

[davidvel]

To sum up this mostly wasted time thread: A positive PCR test is almost always indicative that some level of COVID 19 virus, live, dead or just pieces was found at the sampling site. It does not mean the person is currently infected or infectious. Whether one wants to label this a "positive test" or not doesn't change this.

And the experts that rely and use the data from these tests already knew all that before this thread started. and still do.

 

[rickandcindy23]

This was a good read:

The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe: Richards Ph.D., Jay W., Briggs Ph.D., William M., Axe Ph.D., Douglas: 9781684511419: Amazon.com: Books

The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe [Richards Ph.D., Jay W., Briggs Ph.D., William M., Axe Ph.D., Douglas] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe

www.amazon.com

 

[Brett]

This was a good read:

The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe: Richards Ph.D., Jay W., Briggs Ph.D., William M., Axe Ph.D., Douglas: 9781684511419: Amazon.com: Books

The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe [Richards Ph.D., Jay W., Briggs Ph.D., William M., Axe Ph.D., Douglas] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe

www.amazon.com

yes, we know the pandemic is a hoax and it's all "media induced panic" but I'll read the other recommended book --


Anthony Fauci: The Bernie Madoff of Science

 

[DannyTS]

To sum up this mostly wasted time thread: A positive PCR test is almost always indicative that some level of COVID 19 virus, live, dead or just pieces was found at the sampling site. It does not mean the person is currently infected or infectious. Whether one wants to label this a "positive test" or not doesn't change this.

And the experts that rely and use the data from these tests already knew all that before this thread started. and still do.

Most people do not know this, most politicians do not know this and the lockdown measures have been made based on incomplete and flawed data. Most Tuggers do not know this (and there still are some deniars out there, the "Earth is flat" expression should not be a monopoly on one side). Doctors I spoke with did not know this few months ago although they are starting to acknowledge now that this may have been a huge problem. I am not sure why you are saying that the "experts that rely and use the data from these tests already knew all that". The number of cycles is not communicated by labs (!) so what do they actually know and how can they use information they do not have in real time? If you are a doctor treating somebody with 3 comorbidities it is very relevant if the patient tested "positive" after 42 cycles or after 20, your decisions may be different. If somebody who works in a whearhouse tests "positive" after 42 cycles and again positive after 42 cycles 3 days do you have to keep the business closed when nobody is actually sick? Do you have to keep a school closed in a similar situation?

It seems that "follow the science" does not apply regarding the PCR cycles. Why is less data better than more data and who benefits from this information void?

 

["Roger"]

Here we go again. My suggestion Danny is that instead of all these posts on TUG (small audience), you contact your own Canadian Public Health Agency. Apparently, they are under the impression that PRC tests, while they might produce too many false negatives, are highly accurate when they produce a positive.

Fact check: How accurate are PCR tests for the novel coronavirus?

Experts say PCR tests for the virus that causes COVID-19 almost never return false positive results, but false negatives are more common.

www.ctvnews.ca

From the article...

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) says false positives are "very rare." Public Health Ontario reported last August that it had found a false positive testing rate of less than 0.01 per cent. "If you have a positive test, there's virtually zero likelihood that you're actually negative," (Emphasis added)​

This is your own health agency which is apparently being deceived.

 

[DannyTS]

Here we go again. My suggestion Danny is that instead of all these posts on TUG (small audience), you contact your own Canadian Public Health Agency. Apparently, they are under the impression that PRC tests, while they might produce too many false negatives, are highly accurate when they produce a positive.

Fact check: How accurate are PCR tests for the novel coronavirus?

Experts say PCR tests for the virus that causes COVID-19 almost never return false positive results, but false negatives are more common.

www.ctvnews.ca

From the article...

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) says false positives are "very rare." Public Health Ontario reported last August that it had found a false positive testing rate of less than 0.01 per cent. "If you have a positive test, there's virtually zero likelihood that you're actually negative," (Emphasis added)​

This is your own health agency which is apparently being deceived.

Can you please tell me what is the definition of a "positive" to Health Canada? You guessed it, a positive test. A person who is not infected but tests positive with 40 PCR amplifications will continue to test positive using the same method and the same number of amplification. I think that by now I have posted enough scientific evidence for you to follow regarding this topic. You either want to read it or you don't, fine with me either way.

 

["Roger"]

In their testing for accuracy, the health agency used a control to check on the accuracy of the test. What was their control?

The positive control is typically a previously characterised positive clinical specimen, inactivated virus culture, or viral nucleic acid. If positive control material is limited, synthetic RNA sequence, identical to the target region of the virus, is used as an alternative...​

This is not a case of using one positive test to confirm previous positive test. Where did you come up with that????

When false positives might occur...

False positive results can occur at various stages of laboratory testing, and can be grouped into the​

following categories:​

1. Pre-analytical errors. These are errors that occur prior to the actual testing and include issues​

such as mislabelling of specimens, resulting in incorrect results being reported. These errors may​

also result from specimen contamination at time of collection, in transport, or during aliquoting​

in the laboratory.​

2. Analytical errors. These occur during the laboratory testing process. These include, for​

example, errors related to reagent contamination. Reagents can arrive contaminated from the​

supplier. To mitigate this, each new lot of reagents undergoes a quality assurance check before​

being put into use. False positive results can also arise from contamination due to pipetting​

errors, which can be due to human error or defects in automated equipment. Such analytic​

errors are controlled through the use of negative and positive controls on each run of the assay,​

which are reviewed prior to releasing results.​

3. Post-analytical errors. These errors occur at the stage of test result interpretation and​

reporting of results. Incorrect interpretation of amplification curves could lead to a false positive​

result. Transcription errors may also result in false positive results being generated. Such errors​

are mitigated by ensuring all results and interpretations are reviewed prior to reporting​

Yeah, I think we should quit. Again, take your grievances up with the Canadian Public Health Agency and Canadian TV news. (Why are you not doing this?)

 

[DannyTS]

In their testing for accuracy, the health agency used a control to check on the accuracy of the test. What was their control?

The positive control is typically a previously characterised positive clinical specimen, inactivated virus culture, or viral nucleic acid. If positive control material is limited, synthetic RNA sequence, identical to the target region of the virus, is used as an alternative...​

This is not a case of using one positive test to confirm previous positive test. Where did you come up with that????

When false positives might occur...

False positive results can occur at various stages of laboratory testing, and can be grouped into the​

following categories:​

1. Pre-analytical errors. These are errors that occur prior to the actual testing and include issues​

such as mislabelling of specimens, resulting in incorrect results being reported. These errors may​

also result from specimen contamination at time of collection, in transport, or during aliquoting​

in the laboratory.​

2. Analytical errors. These occur during the laboratory testing process. These include, for​

example, errors related to reagent contamination. Reagents can arrive contaminated from the​

supplier. To mitigate this, each new lot of reagents undergoes a quality assurance check before​

being put into use. False positive results can also arise from contamination due to pipetting​

errors, which can be due to human error or defects in automated equipment. Such analytic​

errors are controlled through the use of negative and positive controls on each run of the assay,​

which are reviewed prior to releasing results.​

3. Post-analytical errors. These errors occur at the stage of test result interpretation and​

reporting of results. Incorrect interpretation of amplification curves could lead to a false positive​

result. Transcription errors may also result in false positive results being generated. Such errors​

are mitigated by ensuring all results and interpretations are reviewed prior to reporting​

Yeah, I think we should quit. Again, take your grievances up with the Canadian Public Health Agency and Canadian TV news. (Why are you not doing this?)

It says right there in your quote:
" Incorrect interpretation of amplification curves could lead to a false positive
result."


The science is pretty clear, even if you do not want to admit it. Over 30 cycles and you do not know what you are getting, most likely you are telling a person who is not sick and not infectious that he/she is "positive". I do not understand you. Even Dr Fauci said that there is a problem over 35 cycles. Until early January, WHO was reccomending 40-42 cycles!!!

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90508

 

[DannyTS]

@Roger This is another paper for you, very clear as well "A PCR-defined pandemic":

"While the presence of RNA fragments identified by qualitative SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests certainly indicates prior contact with the viral genome or parts of it, no reliable statement can be made with regard to the actual infectivity of an individual. During the clinical course of COVID-19, the release of virus particles from somatic cells and shedding of the virus does not necessarily imply that the virus is contagious. Questions to gauge the reliability and dependability of PCR tests and their significance and impact on the clinical presentation have arisen, due to the finding of positive tests results during the phase of physical recovery from COVID-19 in patients who have already been discharged from hospital on the basis of several negative test results (Lu et al., 2020)."

"Of note, the US CDC reasonably recommends a symptom-based decision for returning from isolation, specifically rejecting the exclusively test-based strategy, unless it would result in an earlier decision."

"Defining the duration of infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 has major implications in determining incidences. Several studies now suggest that persistent positive RT-PCRs do not necessarily indicate the presence of replication-competent viruses (Alexandersen et al., 2020, Rhee et al., 2020). In fact, sustained RNA detection does not indicate sustained infectivity, and SARS-CoV-2 genomic and sub-genomic RNAs in diagnostic samples are not an indicator of active virus replication (Alexandersen et al., 2020). It has also been shown that the contagiousness in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 decreases rapidly to near zero approximately 10 days after symptom onset (Rhee et al., 2020).

Early testing for SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with symptoms is important to determine infectivity based on low Ct values, and early isolation practices to effectively interrupt SARS-CoV-2 transmission should be commenced when first symptoms appear. However, testing individuals 7 days after the onset of symptoms, which is more likely to be done in low- and middle-income countries, but also occurs in developed countries, only contributes to the assessment of the case numbers. Thus, the veracity of the testing strategy with regard to an estimation of infectivity is questionable. It has to be considered whether only laboratory diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR are sufficient to allow the assessment of infectivity."

COVID-19: A PCR-defined pandemic

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[davidvel]

Most people do not know this, most politicians do not know this and the lockdown measures have been made based on incomplete and flawed data. Most Tuggers do not know this (and there still are some deniars out there, the "Earth is flat" expression should not be a monopoly on one side). Doctors I spoke with did not know this few months ago although they are starting to acknowledge now that this may have been a huge problem. I am not sure why you are saying that the "experts that rely and use the data from these tests already knew all that". The number of cycles is not communicated by labs (!) so what do they actually know and how can they use information they do not have in real time? If you are a doctor treating somebody with 3 comorbidities it is very relevant if the patient tested "positive" after 42 cycles or after 20, your decisions may be different. If somebody who works in a whearhouse tests "positive" after 42 cycles and again positive after 42 cycles 3 days do you have to keep the business closed when nobody is actually sick? Do you have to keep a school closed in a similar situation?

It seems that "follow the science" does not apply regarding the PCR cycles. Why is less data better than more data and who benefits from this information void?

I agree that most people don't know the nuances of the science behind tests, what is defined as a positive result, and what the test means. Many posts show people just don't understand the science. But you are also whitewashing the science (IMO a bit intentionally and disingenuously to feed your theory), with your repeated claims that a finding of virus particles after x number of cycles is too many cycles and should not be considered positive.

By this I mean you can't simply use the # of cycles to determine if someone is infectious/positive/actively infected, and YOU KNOW THIS.

Example #1: You could need 50 cycles to find the minute amounts of virus in someone who was recently infected and on the rise, soon to be HIGHLY contagious.

Example #2: Alternatively you could have someone with high levels of spike inhibited (by antibodies) virus that is not infectious at all, but this is detected in 10-20 cycles. In these polar opposite cases, the cycles don't instruct us as you claim they should.

The doctors, researchers, and policy makers all have to draw a line somewhere to establish what is deemed positive for purposes of "labeling" the testee. It is not black and white as you suggest, there is no perfect line as you assert, it is a judgment call of a murky grey area that must be made, just as almost all areas of medical treatment.

Your incessant posts claiming that there is some conspiracy to the # of cycles takes away from your ability to explain the science behind testing and cycles, instead of just posting links over and over. While I am highly critical and skeptical of the motives behind many public policy makers in my state and country, I don't think any politicians decided at what point we would stop looking for particles of covid in a test sample.

And to answer another of your questions, no those in the critical care bastions of our hospitals don't care how many cycles they ran on your test. They treat your symptoms and try to save your life.

 

[DannyTS]

I agree that most people don't know the nuances of the science behind tests, what is defined as a positive result, and what the test means. Many posts show people just don't understand the science. But you are also whitewashing the science (IMO a bit intentionally and disingenuously to feed your theory), with your repeated claims that a finding of virus particles after x number of cycles is too many cycles and should not be considered positive.

By this I mean you can't simply use the # of cycles to determine if someone is infectious/positive/actively infected, and YOU KNOW THIS.

Example #1: You could need 50 cycles to find the minute amounts of virus in someone who was recently infected and on the rise, soon to be HIGHLY contagious.

Example #2: Alternatively you could have someone with high levels of spike inhibited (by antibodies) virus that is not infectious at all, but this is detected in 10-20 cycles. In these polar opposite cases, the cycles don't instruct us as you claim they should.

The doctors, researchers, and policy makers all have to draw a line somewhere to establish what is deemed positive for purposes of "labeling" the testee. It is not black and white as you suggest, there is no perfect line as you assert, it is a judgment call of a murky grey area that must be made, just as almost all areas of medical treatment.

Your incessant posts claiming that there is some conspiracy to the # of cycles takes away from your ability to explain the science behind testing and cycles, instead of just posting links over and over. While I am highly critical and skeptical of the motives behind many public policy makers in my state and country, I don't think any politicians decided at what point we would stop looking for particles of covid in a test sample.

And to answer another of your questions, no those in the critical care bastions of our hospitals don't care how many cycles they ran on your test. They treat your symptoms and try to save your life.

Your Example #1: you run another test few days later and if you detect the "virus" again after 35 cycles it means the person is NOT infected and NOT on the rise and the person can carry on with his regular business. You can also discard that as a "new" case. If on the other hand the second test is positive after 20 cycles, it is very important info to know when the person might have gotten infected and how to be treated.
Your example #2 I do not see a problem with that. My problem is purely with those in in the high number of cycles.

No I am not whitewashing the science, the problem is that the information is purpusly not communicated, stored and researched as it should be. How come we know the number of new cases last week in Namibia for example but we do not know the median number of cycles in our home cities? You are saying that it is murky area and it is a judgement call. Fine, how can you make a judgement call if you do NOT have the information? This is like the lab telling the doctor that you have diabetis or not. It does not work that way. Yes, the doctors want you to get better but do you realize how difficult their job would be if all the other health tests would come with a binary result? . Go back to the NYT article and to what those scientists said. Are they whitewashing science too? So my question to you, in North America, how many people have tested "positive" with more than 30 cycles? Nobody knows. And how come that in January the number of new cases plumeted silultaneously in Canada, US and Mexico after the WHO changed the testing reccomandations? No correlation whatsoever? And if there is a correlation, what does that tell you about the numbers before that happened?

 

[davidvel]

Your Example #1: you run another test few days later and if you detect the "virus" again after 35 cycles it means the person is NOT infected and NOT on the rise and the person can carry on with his regular business. You can also discard that as a "new" case. If on the other hand the second test is positive after 20 cycles, it is very important info to know when the person might have gotten infected and how to be treated.
Your example #2 I do not see a problem with that. My problem is purely with those in in the high number of cycles.
[...]

Ok, when I thought you understood the science you proved me wrong. You got #1 and #2 entirely backward.

Your plan (not allowing over 20 cycles?) would have never shown that example #1 was positive, on the rise in virus count and highly contagious, and sent them back to the nursing home because you would have stopped at some cycles lower than 50 and it would have shown no virus. No reason to retest b/c according to your metric, not positive. But this person is a ticking time bomb ready to spread virus throughout the land.

You have no problem with the #2 positive, and any restrictions imposed, despite them having no ability to infect or spread the virus to others.

 

[DannyTS]

Ok, when I thought you understood the science you proved me wrong. You got #1 and #2 entirely backward.

Your plan (not allowing over 20 cycles?) would have never shown that example #1 was positive, on the rise in virus count and highly contagious, and sent them back to the nursing home because you would have stopped at some cycles lower than 50 and it would have shown no virus. No reason to retest b/c according to your metric, not positive. But this person is a ticking time bomb ready to spread virus throughout the land.

You have no problem with the #2 positive, and any restrictions imposed, despite them having no ability to infect or spread the virus to others.

#2 No, I do not have any problem with #2 and the restrictions based on these cases are happening anyways so I do not add to the problem.

#1 Who said I would not allow over 20 cycles? The number of cycles would continue to be up to 42 and recorded. Until the second test (or even the third) I would consider them infected and act accordingly. Only after the subsequent tests the decision would be made. I am going to ask you directly: how do you interpret a person without simptoms who tested "positive" 3 times with 42 amplifications each? At what point you will say that the person was maybe never actually sick? By the way, the new WHO guidance is actually confirming that we are going that way, the media just do not talk about it because that would confirm that they have been wrong all along:
"WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology."

Information is power but somebody decided that we have been better off in the dark.

 

[DannyTS]

PCR Testing Saga: Were We Duped?

Were federal health officials and experts at WHO really unaware that the recommended high cycle count (CT) for PCR tests would produce an exorbitant number of false positives for COVID?

childrenshealthdefense.org

 

[Conan]

PCR Testing Saga: Were We Duped?

Were federal health officials and experts at WHO really unaware that the recommended high cycle count (CT) for PCR tests would produce an exorbitant number of false positives for COVID?

childrenshealthdefense.org

Apparently sponsored by famous anti-vaxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Mercury, Vaccines and the CDC’s Worst Nightmare

RALLYING THE TROOPS — Mr. Kennedy spoke to parents and advocates at the CDC rally in October 2015 about the lack of truth and transparency within the

childrenshealthdefense.org

Opinion | Vaccines Are Safe, No Matter What Robert Kennedy Jr. Says (Published 2020)

I love my uncle. But when it comes to vaccines, he is wrong.

www.nytimes.com

 

[DannyTS]

Apparently sponsored by famous anti-vaxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Do not worry, you will never be accused of reading the articles posted . Read it, comment about its content and we will talk about it. The article was written by this guy:

Dr. Joseph Mercola’s Qualifications

Read about Dr. Joseph Mercola’s qualifications, educational background, practice profile, publications, affiliations, and professional organizations

www.mercola.com

• 1999
  
  Reported about the dangers of the NSAID Vioxx. In 2004, the drug was withdrawn by Merck from the market due to its potential to cause adverse cardiovascular effects.
• 2000
  
  Advised against the cultivation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In 2015, the National Geographic published an article calling GMOs "the biggest fraud in the history of science."
• 2000
  
  Promoted lack of vitamin D as "far more important to health" than concerns over calcium. In 2015, Science Daily promoted sunlight and vitamin D to be necessary for public health.
• 2001
  
  Warned against the use of mercury in dentistry, which was revealed to have close links to the development of Alzheimer's disease. In 2017, the Minamata Convention on Mercury became effective, banning the manufacture, import and export of products that contain mercury, including dental amalgam.
• 2002
  
  Advised against water fluoridation, as fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can do body-wide problems. In 2015, the U.S. lowered its fluoride levels in water, finding that it damages the teeth.
• 2006
  
  Advised against aspartame due to its connection to leukemia and 90 other different related adverse reactions. In 2015, The Washington Post published an article about on the real dangers of fake sweeteners.
• 2012
  
  Supported the California Ballot Proposition 37 (Yes on 37) which would require GMO foods to be labeled. Prop. 37 paved the way for other state initiatives, such as in Oregon, where a bill was passed in 2014 officially banning genetically engineered crops from being grown in Jackson County.
• 2014
  
  Supported the regenerative agriculture movement, which aims to promote biodynamic farming to rebuild topsoil, protect biodiversity and prevent global disaster.
• 2014
  
  Visited Mexico and partnered with Caminos de Agua (formerly CATIS-Mexico) to support rural communities by helping develop low-tech fluoride removal and rain water catchment mechanism for non-contaminated water.

 

[Conan]

Do not worry, you will never be accused of reading the articles posted . Read it, comment about its content and we will talk about it.

I have time enough to read these articles, but I don’t have the time or inclination to fact-check articles from sources that are iffy at best, in this case a pet project of the nuttiest Kennedy.

In an earlier go-around you posted from a different pseudoscience site. That time after reading the article I offered a third party critique. Here’s the link—maybe you read it?

Masks (Still) Work: Debunking (More) Pseudoscience

A Reply to Colleen Huber, NMD

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[DannyTS]

I have time enough to read these articles, but I don’t have the time or inclination to fact-check articles from sources that are iffy at best, in this case a pet project of the nuttiest Kennedy.

In an earlier go-around you posted from a different pseudoscience site. That time after reading the article I offered a third party critique. Here’s the link—maybe you read it?

Masks (Still) Work: Debunking (More) Pseudoscience

A Reply to Colleen Huber, NMD

www.psychologytoday.com

I am not agains masks, I do not know where you got that idea, if that is what you are suggesting. I have been wearing one since before they were mandatory in my area and my kids have worn them even if they do not have to , due to their age. At the minimum they do no hurt. At the same time, you look at Florida vs California, Sweden vs USA (and many other examples) and it makes you wonder. I have to say though, most articles that claim to "debunk" others are more ideological than scientific. There are many articles posted in this thread that are either scientific studies or make dirrect refference to them. In case you have time to read of course.

 

[Conan]

Just to clarify, a previous post of yours featured an article at a site you favor, townhall.com, titled “New Study Shows Mask Mandates Had Zero Effect in Florida or Nationwide But the Lie Continues.” Which I read.

That article relied extensively on an article at rationalground.com by Colleen Huber, a naturopath by trade, which I also read.

Tired of chasing further rabbit holes, I found and offered you the Psychology Today article on pseudoscience which traced Ms Huber’s sources and demonstrated how she twists them into something they’re not.

Which explains my conclusion that it’s a waste of time to work through the material you post when you so often serve up dubious sources.

 

[DannyTS]

I think the problem is not that you do not like the sources but that you would rather pretend this issue does not exist, you would have too much to process if you admit there has been a problem with the tests. Read these materials (if you have time of course) and reflect why they have not been discussed extensively by the media you follow. In summary, once they exceed a certain number of cycles, the PCR tests have a very dodgy ability of detecting an infected person and an active virus. Because the number of cycles can provide fundamental information to doctors and nurses, it should have been provided to them but somebody decided it is better to keep them in the dark. The number of amplifications is also very important for research and it has implications in establishing public policies.

Oxford academic

Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates

TO THE EDITOR—The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was decl

academic.oup.com

New York Times

Why False Positives Merit Concern, Too (Published 2020)

False negatives are not the only troublesome outcome of a faulty coronavirus test.

www.nytimes.com

New York Times

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. (Published 2020)

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.

www.nytimes.com

Science Magazine

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

CDC

Labs

COVID-19 resources and guidelines for labs and laboratory workers.

www.cdc.gov

AIER

New Study Highlights Alleged Accounting Error Regarding Covid Deaths

"The accounting error has likely led to a number of policy decisions that have drastically crippled our ability to support the general welfare of society, economically, socially, and spiritually. Going forward these findings should give us pause and reconsideration over the threat Covid-19...

www.aier.org

The Hill

Appropriate use of PCR needed for a focused response to the pandemic

The WHO’s guidance on the RT-PCR test emphasizes two things that have long been known in the scientific literature and public health practice but inexplicably ignored in COVID policy for almost a y…

thehill.com

National Bureau of Economic research (study from Duke, John Hopkins, Harvard)

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28304/w28304.pdf

The Intelligencer

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/cdc-drug-overdose-deaths-in-2020-on-track-to-break-record.html

Medrxiv (med-archive)

Excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic among Californians 18–65 years of age, by occupational sector and occupation: March through October 2020

Background Though SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks have been documented in occupational settings and though there is speculation that essential workers face heightened risks for COVID-19, occupational differences in excess mortality have, to date, not been examined. Such information could point to...

www.medrxiv.org

Medpage

Op-Ed: Why PCR Cycle Threshold Is Useful in Coronavirus Testing

It can help better triage patients, physician argues

www.medpagetoday.com

MSN news

Appropriate use of PCR needed for a focused response to the pandemic

Medrxiv (med-archive) (study from Brown University)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.21250557v1.full.pdf

New England Journal of Medicine

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2027040

WHO

WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Date: 13 January 2021 WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2 Target audience: laboratory professionals and...

www.who.int

 

[rickandcindy23]

yes, we know the pandemic is a hoax and it's all "media induced panic" but I'll read the other recommended book --


Anthony Fauci: The Bernie Madoff of Science

They don't say there was no pandemic, but there was over-reaction and a lot of misinformation put out there to scare people.