A bit off-topic, Dr., but is PCR for "COVID" a two-step process? IOW, testing "positive" can mean nothing in terms of being sick or being infectious. To find out if you're "positive" and infectious, a second test -- using the test sample in a cell culture, for example, to see if those cells become infected -- would tell you if you you're infected 𝘢𝘯𝘥 infectious. Is that correct? Even if you're infectious, it does not mean you can "make" anyone else sick, right?
No, as sanctioned by CDC and fda, there is no second step to verify via cell culture. There was a study that showed that doing culture and PCR samples that had cycle thresholds greater than 35 was utterly meaningless. And we have an admission from an insider from CDC that they knew this. See https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Fig2.png
Thank you! But that would be the best way, yes? With a "positive" result, there should have been a second step to verify infectiousness vs. telling everyone to isolate because their PCR was "positive" or that they were sick despite feeling fine/being asymptomatic.
(I'm really trying to wrap my head around this, Dr. Jack, to make sure I understand what PCR can do -- and cannot do -- and what it tells us. I may go back and watch your conversation with Steve Kirsch 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏. I thought that was one of the takeaways from that conversation -- "positive" PCR by itself is almost meaningless. Was it? 😊)
Sent an email with that subject line.
Love the process- Could you please provide a link to the fact sheet?
“More than antibodies”
I would like to read and understand the content produced better.
Please send us an email
A bit off-topic, Dr., but is PCR for "COVID" a two-step process? IOW, testing "positive" can mean nothing in terms of being sick or being infectious. To find out if you're "positive" and infectious, a second test -- using the test sample in a cell culture, for example, to see if those cells become infected -- would tell you if you you're infected 𝘢𝘯𝘥 infectious. Is that correct? Even if you're infectious, it does not mean you can "make" anyone else sick, right?
No, as sanctioned by CDC and fda, there is no second step to verify via cell culture. There was a study that showed that doing culture and PCR samples that had cycle thresholds greater than 35 was utterly meaningless. And we have an admission from an insider from CDC that they knew this. See https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Fig2.png
Thank you! But that would be the best way, yes? With a "positive" result, there should have been a second step to verify infectiousness vs. telling everyone to isolate because their PCR was "positive" or that they were sick despite feeling fine/being asymptomatic.
(I'm really trying to wrap my head around this, Dr. Jack, to make sure I understand what PCR can do -- and cannot do -- and what it tells us. I may go back and watch your conversation with Steve Kirsch 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏. I thought that was one of the takeaways from that conversation -- "positive" PCR by itself is almost meaningless. Was it? 😊)