# Does This Mean The CDC is Stopping the PCR Test For Covid-19?



## JonDouglas (Jul 24, 2021)

I heard the CDC was pulling the PCR test because it couldn't tell the difference between influenza and covid-19 & strains.  Then, I saw this:







What does this imply?


----------



## Tish (Jul 24, 2021)

I have no idea what's soever, I always thought they were using the SARS-Cov-2.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jul 24, 2021)

There may be more information in the lawsuit by AFD (America's Frontline Doctors) against DHHS.  I haven't read the lawsuit but an informed friend sent some info saying the suit addresses the issue of polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, tests, which are also classified as experimental under an EUA, have artificially increased the number of overall cases.  The lawsuit notes the manufacturers of the PCR tests include a disclaimer that the “FDA has not determined that the test is safe or effective for the detection of SARS-Co-V-2.”


----------



## Devi (Jul 24, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> I heard the CDC was pulling the PCR test because it couldn't tell the difference between influenza and covid-19 & strains.  Then, I saw this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For some reason, the image in your post wasn't displaying in Firefox. I had to use another browser to view it.


----------



## ProTruckDriver (Jul 24, 2021)

Devi said:


> For some reason, the image in your post wasn't displaying in Firefox. I had to use another browser to view it.


I see the image using Firefox / Chrome / Safari on my Mac. Once in a great while it happens to me and I reboot the computer / Firefox and it fixes the problem for me.


----------



## AnnieA (Jul 24, 2021)

.
Larger screenshot just taken from the CDC website states that "CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses."

I can't find any interpretation or explanation  ...even acknowledgement for this except a Turkish news source that posted a story 24 July 2021 that copies the CDC notice word for word.   Very strange...


https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/...-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 24, 2021)

I read pieces where they said the settings on it varied too much with some saying as few 27 cycles only yet the standard was much higher towards 40. They say the lower the cycles the better/more accurate.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jul 26, 2021)

A friend sent me this information.  I have not fully researched it and am not sure of its validity; however, it is of interest and may contain wheat in whatever chaff there is.
--------------------------------
As a reminder, "cycle thresholds" (Ct) are the level at which widely used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test can detect a sample of the COVID-19 virus. The higher the number of cycles, the lower the amount of viral load in the sample; the lower the cycles, the more prevalent the virus was in the original sample.​​

​​Numerous epidemiological experts have argued that cycle thresholds are an *important metric by which patients, the public, and policymakers can make more informed decisions* about how infectious and/or sick an individual with a positive COVID-19 test might be. However, *health departments across the country are failing to collect that data.*​​Here are a few headlines from those experts and scientific studies:​​


> 1. Experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that conclude:*“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus."*​2. The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40: “_With a *Ct threshold of 35*, approximately *half* of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive_,” said the NYT._ *“And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “*_​3. An appeals court in Portugal has* ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2*, and therefore any _enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful._​4. A new study from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, found that *at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of PCR test "positives" are not "cases" since the virus cannot be cultured, it's dead.* And by 35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical.​5. *PCR is not testing for disease, it's testing for a specific RNA pattern *and this is the key pivot. When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really "positives" in any clinical sense*, since **it cannot make you or anyone else sick*​


So, in summary, *with regard to our current "casedemic", positive tests as they are counted today do not indicate a “case” of anything.* They indicate that viral RNA was found in a nasal swab. It may be enough to make you sick, but according to the New York Times and their experts, probably won’t. And certainly not sufficient replication of the virus to make anyone else sick. But you will be sent home for ten days anyway, even if you never have a sniffle. *And this is the number the media breathlessly reports... and is used to fearmonger mask mandates and lockdowns nationwide...*​


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 26, 2021)

I've heard several doctors say they should've only tested the sick similar to flu. The over testing lead to or enabled over management. Which in turn might have made matters worse because things like the lockdowns including reduced business hours and public transportation schedules put more people in contact with others they normally wouldn't have anything to do with.  Also all the press put stress on many which in turn lead to weakend immune systems and/or hesitant to seek a doctor because they didn't want to quarantine, contact trace etc. 

Even though deadly to some patients most flus cycle through the economy and are done by the warmer weather. If we treated every flu season like this no matter the variant every winter would look like the last 2 years


----------



## Lewkat (Jul 26, 2021)

It means that nasal swabs aren't the answer as the RNA only confirms a virus exists, but not what type.  Serology and molecular tests are the accurate testing for a specific virus.  There are a couple of other tests as well.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jul 28, 2021)

Got this on a private newsletter and then confirmed on FDA site.

_The Food & Drug Administration issued a class I recall for a defective COVID rapid test that had been the “benchmark” for testing in the United States. It continues an alarming trend of problems with COVID tests in the United States._​​_“The FDA has classified the recall of this test as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall,” the government agency said. “The FDA also has issued a warning letter to Innova Medical Group, Inc.”_​​_Innova describes itself as “the world’s largest manufacturer of rapid antigen tests and leader in COVID-19 testing solutions globally.” The FDA states the reasons for the COVID test recall:_​​_“Innova Medical Group is recalling its SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. Labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests. The performance characteristics of the test have not been adequately established, presenting a risk of false results.”_​
_False-negative results may lead to delayed diagnosis or inappropriate treatment of SARS-CoV-2, which may cause patient harm including serious illness and death. False-negative results can also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including when presumed negative patients are grouped into cohorts in health care, long-term care, and other facilities based on false test results._​
_False-positive results could lead to a delay in the correct diagnosis and the initiation of an appropriate treatment for the actual cause of patient illness, which could be another life-threatening disease that is not SARS-CoV-2. False-positive results could also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when presumed positive patients are grouped into cohorts based on false test results._​
This does suggest there is a ton of bad data and false information out there based on some bad testing regimens.  But then, it's no secret that the CDC has a history of getting it wrong on covid testing and counting.  Bottom line:  It appears they couldn't distinguish between covid and the more common flu, which resulted counting any flu-like symptoms as covid in many places..


----------



## John cycling (Jul 29, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> it's no secret that the CDC has a history of getting it wrong on covid testing and counting.  Bottom line:
> *It appears they couldn't distinguish between covid and the more common flu*, which resulted counting any flu-like symptoms as covid in many places..



I thought you were going to say between a virus and a vaccination, but same thing.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Jul 30, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Got this on a private newsletter and then confirmed on FDA site.
> 
> _The Food & Drug Administration issued a class I recall for a defective COVID rapid test that had been the “benchmark” for testing in the United States. It continues an alarming trend of problems with COVID tests in the United States._​​_“The FDA has classified the recall of this test as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall,” the government agency said. “The FDA also has issued a warning letter to Innova Medical Group, Inc.”_​​_Innova describes itself as “the world’s largest manufacturer of rapid antigen tests and leader in COVID-19 testing solutions globally.” The FDA states the reasons for the COVID test recall:_​​_“Innova Medical Group is recalling its SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. Labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests. The performance characteristics of the test have not been adequately established, presenting a risk of false results.”_​
> _False-negative results may lead to delayed diagnosis or inappropriate treatment of SARS-CoV-2, which may cause patient harm including serious illness and death. False-negative results can also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including when presumed negative patients are grouped into cohorts in health care, long-term care, and other facilities based on false test results._​
> ...


"Reason for Recall​"Innova Medical Group is recalling its SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. Labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests. The performance characteristics of the test have not been adequately established, presenting a risk of false results."

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices...ntigen-rapid-qualitative-test-risk-false-test

In other words, Innova decided to try to scam the public with false labeling.


----------



## AnnieA (Jul 31, 2021)

Finally, people are starting to clarify the  confusion. It doesn't mean that the current PCR can't differentiate between Covid and the flu but that it only tests for Covid and not for both. The CDC is moving to single tests (several companies making these) that can detect both Covid and influenza to replace the separate PCR and flu only test.  That does make sense rather than using two tests at one patient visit to differentiate  ...if they're accurate.  Haven't researched them yet.

I'd imagine the second--unacknowledged reason--is that the CDC likes to artificially inflate influenza deaths by lumping them with deaths from all cause pneumonia; this will help them get their influenza stats back up since Covid knocked flu stats down last year.     I imagine they'd be thrilled to get positives for both viruses from the single test.   That'll justify more money from the federal gravy train and more pharmaceutical payouts in the form of patents held by employees for flu vaccines, likely cash under the table and will ensure bureaucratic job security. I think it was @FastTrax who described the CDC as* C*oin *D*at *C*ash.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid19-pcr-test-idUSL1N2P42U5

.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Jul 31, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> Finally, people are starting to clarify the  confusion. It doesn't mean that the current PCR can't differentiate between Covid and the flu but that it only tests for Covid and not for both. The CDC is moving to single tests (several companies making these) that can detect both Covid and influenza to replace the separate PCR and flu only test.  That does make sense rather than using two tests at one patient visit to differentiate  ...if they're accurate.  Haven't researched them yet.
> 
> I'd imagine the second--unacknowledged reason--is that the CDC likes to artificially inflate influenza deaths by lumping them with deaths from all cause pneumonia; this will help them get their influenza stats back up since Covid knocked flu stats down last year.     I imagine they'd be thrilled to get positives for both viruses from the single test.   That'll justify more money from the federal gravy train and more pharmaceutical payouts in the form of patents held by employees for flu vaccines, likely cash under the table and will ensure bureaucratic job security. I think it was @FastTrax who described the CDC as* C*oin *D*at *C*ash.
> 
> ...


You may or may not be right about the CDC and inflation of influenza stats and I'd like to know.  Can you please tell me where you got the information?  Thanks!


----------



## AnnieA (Jul 31, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> You may or may not be right about the CDC and inflation of influenza stats and I'd like to know.  Can you please tell me where you got the information?  Thanks!



The CDC prior to Covid-19 skewed flu death statistics by lumping deaths due to pneumonia in with flu (*P&I* report if you're looking at pre-2020 stats on their website) even though pneumonia is caused by a lot of other things such as chemical inhalation, emphysema, aspiration, stomach acid producing drugs, other viruses besides the flu, various bacteria and on and on...

From the British Medical Journal:  Are US flu deaths more PR than science?
​US data on influenza deaths are a mess. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably. Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear—a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts “predict dire outcomes” during flu seasons.​​The CDC website states what has become commonly accepted and widely reported in the lay and scientific press: annually “about 36 000 [Americans] die from flu”  and “influenza/pneumonia” is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. But why are flu and pneumonia bundled together? Is the relationship so strong or unique to warrant characterising them as a single cause of death?​​Lay article explaining it from HuffPost Canada:  "Don't Believe Everything You Read About Flu Deaths"

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html


.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Jul 31, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> The CDC prior to Covid-19 skewed flu death statistics by lumping deaths due to pneumonia in with flu (*P&I* report if you're looking at pre-2020 stats on their website) even though pneumonia is caused by a lot of other things such as chemical inhalation, emphysema, aspiration, stomach acid producing drugs, other viruses besides the flu, various bacteria and on and on...
> 
> From the British Medical Journal:  Are US flu deaths more PR than science?
> ​US data on influenza deaths are a mess. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably. Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear—a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts “predict dire outcomes” during flu seasons.​​The CDC website states what has become commonly accepted and widely reported in the lay and scientific press: annually “about 36 000 [Americans] die from flu”  and “influenza/pneumonia” is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. But why are flu and pneumonia bundled together? Is the relationship so strong or unique to warrant characterising them as a single cause of death?​​Lay article explaining it from HuffPost Canada:  "Don't Believe Everything You Read About Flu Deaths"
> ...


Thanks, Annie.


----------



## ohioboy (Aug 7, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> There may be more information in the lawsuit by AFD (America's Frontline Doctors) against DHHS.  I haven't read the lawsuit but an informed friend sent some info saying the suit addresses the issue of polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, tests, which are also classified as experimental under an EUA, have artificially increased the number of overall cases.


Start at page 4, it mentions it:

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5aa5e74f00/M for PI file stamped.pdf


----------

