Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Friday, January 29, 2021

PCR

Notes
Links


PCR - Heneghan, Carl

   This very basic information is many months too late. The PCR test has been wrongly accepted as the gold standard of testingIt is notBefore and since the pandemic [NHS (page 16) 45 cycles after and 35 cycles before - even 35 PCR cycles is too many] it has always been 'unfit for purpose'. There has never been any standard or calibration - a consistent number of cycles that must be stated in every test. Test centre results cannot be comparedOne laboratory and a different laboratory could give a very different results with far-reaching consequencesOne positive. The other negative.

    Because of this gross neglect the global lockdowns have all been based on flawed information. Any competent CMO would be acquainted with the PCR test limitations and of the consequences of failure to advise Governments accordingly. As a consequence, the roll-out of a 'vaccine' in the absense of long-term safety data has been authorised. This does not define an approved 'vaccine'. Only its (safety unprovenuse under 'emergency' status. This has produced a (probable) human disaster.

   All Government CMOs are collectively responsible for the expected damage caused. To both humans and the economy. The cost of buying these unnecessary and potentially dangerous 'vaccines' is enormous. Outcomes are unknown as is the safety of any 'vaccine'Creating the conditions of fear have falsely 'encouraged' people to accept (demand, Louis DA) the 'vaccine'.

 

Problem - Reaction - Solution

 

Clarification of terms

Ct (cycle threshold) values represent the number of cycles of amplification elapsed before the test system signals detection of the target. In general terms, the higher the Ct value the lower the quantity of virus target present in the sample. Precise definition of what constitutes a high or very high Ct value is difficult because a Ct value is not comparable to the quantitative output from a calibrated assay. The Ct value for a given sample will be different in different laboratories depending on the test platform. In general terms for this report a Ct value of 30 or greater is considered a high Ct value and a value of 35 or greater is considered a very high Ct value. It is appropriate for laboratories to adjust these thresholds based on their experience (that's very subjective, Louis - DA) with the platform they are using.

For the purposes of this paper a “positive test” means that the test result meets appropriate criteria to be reported as positive. In general terms, in an assay detecting multiple targets (? - DA), detection of a single target at a high or a very high Ct value should be: (a) reported as either equivocal or not detected based on the reporting policy of the laboratory and their experience (again, that's very subjective, Louis - DA) with the platform and assay in use or; (b) retested on the same or a second platform before reporting. In an assay detecting a single target, detection of that target at a high or very high Ct value should result retesting on the same or a second platform before reporting. Samples with high or very high Ct values that are not reproducible on re-testing should generally be reported to the effect that SARS-CoV-2 RNA was either not confirmed, or SARS-CoV-2 RNA was not detected. If reported as not confirmed or not detected, no further action is required and the result should not be notified to public health. If the laboratory chooses to report the result as equivocal, it is appropriate to request a repeat sample if clinically appropriate. If reported as equivocal the result should not be notified to public health.

 

Louis, is there a financial inducement

to report positive? - DA




35 cycles (! - DA) is deceitful Worse than useless


"It's just dead nucleoids, period.”

 

(Fauci continues to be deceitfulAnything over ~20 cycles is deceitful DA) 

  • 2^45 = > 35 trillion (positive) = 45 cycles
  • 2^20 = > 1 million (negative) = 20 cycles

 Signal amplified (from 1 x strand RNA) additionally by

 x 35 million (2^20 = 1048576)

demanding the public be tested?
COVID-19 testing program. No mention of cycle number
ignore landmark ruling 'not fit for purpose'

deathly silent legally ruled 'useless' (1)

deathly silent legally ruled 'useless' (2) 04.12.2020

...discredited PCR test (abuse) search results

PCR test - cases numbers plummet as the cycle number

(realistically) adjusted

for no reason (Michael Mina MD PhD)
massive COVID-19 false positives

PCR test WHO finally admits to 'problem(1)

PCR test WHO finally admits to 'problem(2)

PCR test WHO finally admits tests are 'unreliable' (3)

PCR test - search results