Agreed. In that vein, Off Guardian has a very pointed take on why the Corona “cases” started falling worldwide in late January. And one guess why that is?
" Well, on January 13th the WHO published a memo regarding the problem of asymptomatic cases being discovered by PCR tests, and suggesting any asymptomatic positive tests be repeated.
I just checked the article, but as with just about every article by Off-G on covid, I was far from convinced.
1 - A step change in the measuring criteria seems unlikely to lead to a trend downwards.
2 - The UK was already double checking borderline results, as far as I know
3 - the UK has been using PCR to check for three distinct SC2 markers to increase confidence that a PCR positive is correlated to exposure to the virus, and not a random fluke
4 - we have had similar falls after lockdown in this country before, without any apparent changes in testing protocols. This is a familiar pattern now
@PontiusPrimate I’m astounded. There is so much clearly documented explanations of the PCR “test” and cycles, that I won’t even bother to debate this with you. All I can say is perhaps you (like all of us) have a massive blind spot on the whole issue of effectiveness of the PCR test.
The PCR “test” for Corona visus does not allow for “borderline” results. It is positive or negative. There is nothing in between.
“… without any apparent changes in testing protocols”. Perhaps this would be more accurate if you said “… without published reductions in PCR cycles”
I suspect you’ve not understood the point I was making. It was about a step change in something leading to a trend rather than another step change. I suggest you have another think about that. To me it’s not at all convincing as an explanation.
Yes, one of us most likely has a blind spot here Given that’s it’s been a month since I wrote extensively on the subject on this board, and you’ve yet to reply to it, acknowledge it, rebut it or even read it, as far as I can tell, I’ll respectfully suggest it’s not me. I remain open to any evidence or thoughts that contradict my analysis. If I’ve made any mistakes in my analysis please do point them out to me.
I don’t think you’re right about that. Labs check for three markers for certainty. The guidelines call tests with only 1 out of the 3 inconclusive and require a further result. Although, in the interests of transparency, I will say that I’ve just found out that some labs seem to have been skipping the double check on inconclusive results, although it’s not clear to me yet how big an impact that has had. Something new for me to look more deeply into.
Perhaps. But as you have no evidence either way, then again perhaps not…
Can I just chip in again here with the assertion that we should treat literally ALL alleged sources of information with buckets of salt. I’d say that, in this time when rampant global corruption meets desperate gic-panic over the upcoming grand 1929-on-steroids socio-economic crash, there are, quite literally, NO published sources of information of which we can be fully confident that they tell objective truth and haven’t been got at. Only calm hindsight is going to give us any true perspective. Till then, the handy Scots legal category of ‘Not Proven’ remains our best bet of all.
Certainly we can - and should - surf about all sources of information, and let our on-board gambler estimate the odds of truthfulness. But it remains clear that it’s ALL a gamble. There are NO certainties…
That may well be a good position, RG, but until someone can point out the flaws in my reasoning, I still firmly believe that PCR testing is far and away the best tool we have for monitoring and controlling the spread of the virus. As I said above, if I’ve got something wrong in my thinking then I’m happy to have it pointed out to me.
So far everything that off-guardian have written on this subject has been very disappointing…
P, if you really, seriously believe that PCR is anything but a fraud in ‘pandemic’ testing, then yes, old buddy, I’d call that a blind spot. (Please feel free too enlighten me on any of mine you’ve spotted. In the nature of things, we absolutely need friends to make us see them, since - by definition - we can’t do it ourselves. )
Did you read my long post where I outlined in some detail all of my reasons for thinking what I think? I laid it out pretty clearly.
If you think I have a blind spot, then please feel free to go through my arguments and show me where. I’m serious - I’d be very happy if you can point to an actual mistake in my reasoning - I’ve posted loads on the subject. Otherwise on what basis are you saying that? Sounds like you’re not reading my posts and simply dismissing them because they don’t fit with your preconceived ideas…
Now, what does that sounds like? Let me look up “blind spot” in the dictionary…
Similarly, if you or anyone else has a better alternative than PCR for tracking the spread of the virus, then I’d be happy to hear it.
There are stat’s on the board (I believe) that show how long someone has spent on any thread. I have read it more than once, did not understand it all (my bad), and did not reply as I do not have the time to analyse a very detailed and complex post, and then compose and post an alternative. But here is my dumb guys logic on PCR “tests”.
Say that 1 in 1,000 people have Corona virus (Matt Hancock’s figures). Then if one tests 100,000 people with a perfect test, there should be 100 “cases”. Test 100,000 people a day for one week and one will get 700 “new cases” (aka a spike). Cut the test numbers down to 10,000 people a day and there will be 70 “new cases” (aka a spike if the previous week there were no tests, or, a decline in “cases”). So, easy peezy to manipulate numbers, not that our government would dream of such a thing.
And exactly the same applies to the PCR “test” itself. If the PCR was actually a test, set the number of cycles correctly (say 30), test 100,000 people and there will be 100 “cases”. Up the cycles to 40 or even 45 (as reported in several places) and there will a lot more than 100 cases (aka, a spike). Reduce the cycles to say 25, and there will be less than 100 “cases”. A decline (of course attributable to great government handling of the crisis). And I know you have put forward detailed arguments against this, but many experts I trust implicitly (notwithstanding @RhisiartGwilym 's comment above), say the same, including Kary Mullis (remember him?). He said (I don’t remember the exact words) “using PCR you can find anything in anyone”.
I don’t think there’s much to be gained by going round this exact same subject again. I’ve dealt with all these points before. In fact, I’ve set out my thinking about all this as clearly as I can. I’ve repeatedly invited folk to point out any mistakes in my reasoning. If I’ve made a mistake I’ll happily correct my view. So far the only feedback has been that we don’t trust the ONS, and you don’t trust published papers written by Canadians.
Not exactly convincing to me but hey ho.
Until people are ready to honestly engage with what I’ve written, I don’t see a whole lot of point in continuing with this subject.
@PontiusPrimate Hi PP. OK. On this thread we agree … to disagree! Perhaps we’ll do better on other threads. On a light note, maybe let me have the last word which is this
Given that’s it’s been a month since I wrote extensively on the subject on this board, and you’ve yet to reply to it, acknowledge it, rebut it or even read it, as far as I can tell, I’ll respectfully suggest it’s not me. I remain open to any evidence or thoughts that contradict my analysis. If I’ve made any mistakes in my analysis please do point them out to me.