Robbie

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robbie, here are some points for you to > consider..... > > First of all, people who are so ill they die are > not returning 'false positive' test results. There > are several ways to test patients for the virus, > and trust me when I say that a person who is in an > ICU is not returning a 'false positive'. Why? > Because by that point, the viral load is so high > that it is undeniable as covid, or any other virus > or bacteria in play. One of the most offensive > ideas out there has been doubt cast on the numbers > of hospital deaths. So let's not repeat that here. > > > Now, have another think about what you are > arguing. 'False positives' do not increase spread > of the virus or the numbers of people ending up in > hospital. If you believe in the existence of > prevalent 'false positives', then that should also > tell you that this virus is in fact, more deadly > than you think, making the argument for more > testing and isolating, not less. > > On PCR tests, the number of cycles isn't the > reason for false positives. To be clear, there is > no such thing as a false positive (and I will come > back to that). Once the machine finds a trace of > SARS cov 2, it stops and beeps. That means most > positive results are identified before they get > anywhere near 40 cycles. So this comes down to a > question of viral load. If your positive test > results from a trace detection, then how > contagious are you in reality? In other words, > every positive result finds a trace of SARS cov 2 > RNA (ie no such thing as a false positive), but > that trace can be detected in the first cycle as > easily as it can be in the 40th. So at present, > the policy is to er on the side of caution, when > it comes to any person showing traces of the > virus. And the number of cycles just makes sure > that every person carrying any trace of the virus > can be found. > > New surges have come after releasing lockdown > restrictions. The virus has already mutated in a > more infectious form. That could only happen while > the virus is still spreading. What if it mutates > into a form that starts making younger people > seriously ill (as seems to be the case with the > new variant in Brazil)? I would worry less about > false positives but the surge that is now testing > the NHS to its limits. Any idea that life can > return to normal, if only we don't count low RNA > counts, is naive. That ship sailed some time ago. > Look to Taiwan if you want to see what needed to > happen to avoid a lockdown. We never did any of > it. Informative, thank you. It's good to hear a logical explanation regarding false positives, especially when that terminology has been freely banded about my so many Health Organisations and professionals (the WHO as I quoted above in particular). I agree with pretty much everything you've said there. I can sympathise with those that cast doubt on the reported number of Covid deaths, when using the argument that the data includes deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive result. Now that data has been recently increased increasing this to 60 days, it will only inflame those opinions unfortunately. I believe that more transparency on deaths as a result of Covid would have appeased them somewhat. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/sars-cov-2-confirmed-england-deaths-report-to-31-december-2020?fbclid=IwAR2ND7_1DADcfBEs0iwoE-GwJP2FGrgrmsyR4pCiAugRBJmsvHwlxVu09WA#covid-19-deaths

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robbie wrote: > > > According to the PHE publication that > > I linked, it plateaus at 28 cycles. > > What does "it" mean here? Where do you think a > sample with a Ct of, say, 30, plateaus? > > And, in the OP: > > > Given that the recommendation for PCR Test > > Cycles to be at 25-30 cycles in order to > > What do you mean by "PCR Test Cycles" being "at > 25-30 cycles". > > And later: > > > A public forum to spread awareness and > > encourage debate is the perfect platform > > for the local community. > > maintain accuracy and a reliable result, > > So can you please point us to the websites where > you got (a) your information about the King's FOI > requests; (b) the recommendation I've just quoted; > and © the information that "In Oxfordshire, the > number of cycles on average used in the 21-30 age > group was just over 58." A) Linked in the original post but here is the full FOI request https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/covid_19_deaths_7#incoming-1701868 B) I've seen quite a few publications that quote around this range over the past year or so. You're more than welcome to provide a link to something that suggests otherwise. C) Apologies this was for Wales, specifically in October, and I misread the data as being the CT when in fact the data shows a % breakdown of all positive cases by age group. I have deleted this error from the original post. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cycle_threshold_values_of_positi_2#incoming-1690451

Mrs D Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But doesn?t the relative fluorescence just plateau > before 40 cycles anyway, so it doesn?t matter if > more cycles are done? And the test result is > dependent on the value reached at that point? According to the PHE publication that I linked, it plateaus at 28 cycles.

ant12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And before you post that publication from WHO Are you referring to this one that was released yesterday? https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05 'WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity. Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information'

ant12 Wrote: > But I guess you've got all your info from David > Icke's son > https://twitter.com/garethicke/status/135202175524 > 2668038?s=20 > > And before you post that publication from WHO (as > all the other covid deniers seem to be doing) > regarding PCR tests- that does not say anything > that verifies your claims about the PCR cycles > used at King's. I'm not sure why you felt the need to mention Icke or try and label me as a Covid denier. Both are grossly incorrect, and such embarrassing accusations to make. Dr Fauci was the first that I can recall mentioning cycle thresholds. 'If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more, the chances of it being replication competent are miniscule' Skip to 03:50 for the relevant question and subsequent answer. My initial point about the number of cycles that the 3 trusts which the hospital utilises (not the hospital itself - selective reading much?) providing unreliable results is valid.

ant12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you an expert in this field? If you're worried > about King's using an inaccurate testing process > then I think it's best to bring it up with them. > King's is going through a really difficult time > with the number of patients in ICU at the moment > so I think questioning their testing processes on > here is a bit unfair. I've had a quick look at the > PCR tests they use and (although I'm no expert) it > appears they are using the recommended number of > cycles for the tests they are using. A public forum to spread awareness and encourage debate is the perfect platform for the local community. The issue has been raised with the trusts directly. As for unfair, running PCR cycles as almost double the threshold (25.6), and in excess of the maximum (40 as per the Public Health England publication) )is the epitome of unfair. It creates a high number of false positives, leading to unnecessary self-isolation, loss of income etc. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf Do you have a link that claims 45 cycles is the recommended number?

Given that the recommendation for PCR Test Cycles to be at 25-30 cycles in order to maintain accuracy and a reliable result, I'm shocked to have discovered that as per this FOI request, the 3 trusts that do the tests for Kings College run theirs at 45 cycles. From what I've read, the rate of which false positives occur and increase is from 35 cycles upwards. Why would they run tests at such high cycles knowing all of this? https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/710545/response/1701868/attach/html/3/FOI%207062%20Q%20and%20A%20Response.pdf.html

Trump and his team have been perfectly fine for months. Get close to Biden and his team in an environment outside of their control and low and behold, caught the virus. Not so straightforward when you view that perspective huh.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But they also mention pizza a lot and other fast > food deliveries, because guess what, campaign > teams work pretty much 24/7 during an election, > and that means lots of takeaway food. The email I provided disproves your statement. I'm not sure why you couldn't, and still can't bring yourself to admit the fact that it's questionable. Mind you, the way you seemingly laugh at the theories involving children, aggressively attacking those who mention it is alarming and very suspicious.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robbie, this is just getting silly now. In no way > is Obama involved with, or ever has been involved > with, the trafficking of children. Stop > embarrassing yourself. Aww poor Blah Blah. Couldn't address the evidence provided which refuted your previous statement, without trying to resort to insults. That is your forte after all. Show everyone on the doll where the Trump supporter hurt you.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And so what? The nominee confirmation event may not have been the super spreader event as you stated. Was it that hard to understand? Do you ever stop seeing conspiracies in > anything? I don't blindly believe everything that I'm told to believe like you do, no.

EDguy89 Wrote: > Still got a link to this item? What is the "known > pedophelia symbol"? Sure, here you go: https://www.wayfair.co.uk/lighting/pdp/isabelle-max-bucareli-night-light-u000090468.html?rtype=8&redir=U000090468 The symbol resembles the little boy lover one as confirmed by the FBI https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/File:FBI-pedophile-symbols-page1.jpg This provides more detailed info into the Wayfair story. I see the night light that I found is one of those that have been questioned. https://orwell1984366490226.wordpress.com/2020/07/12/are-missing-children-being-trafficked-on-wayfair/ Coincidence? Maybe. Questionable? Absolutely

'At least 11 positive coronavirus tests can be traced to members of the media or organizers of this week's presidential debate in Cleveland, city and clinic officials said Friday' https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/11-positive-coronavirus-tests-traced-presidential-debate-cleveland-officials-say-n1241841?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

> But they also mention pizza a lot and other fast > food deliveries, because guess what, campaign > teams work pretty much 24/7 during an election, > and that means lots of takeaway food. Here is the link to the email on wikileaks stating that Obama flew in $65k worth of 'hot dogs' from Chicago to the White House in 2009. The election years were 2008 and 2012. Not only are they very expensive hot dogs, but they would have been extremely cold by the time they arrived. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/12/1223066_re-get-ready-for-chicago-hot-dog-friday-.html This is just one example. I'm not saying this is proof by any means, but to state that the references to takeaway food are innocent is naive at best.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You better hope he doesn't die Robbie. I hope no-one dies, and this has nothing to do with QAnon. Stop labelling everything that gets questioned as being a part of it. You're worse than the media. I feel it's either a ploy, or that his condition may be a lot worse than it currently is. I'm going with the former due to the 2 videos released. I think you know that I'm a fan of Trump. I'm doubting the accuracy of the current reporting and calling him fake news!