A person sent me this story and wanted to give them credit but not sure if they want it.
So he can comment on the blog if they so choose....but I did not find this.
Bombshell: CDC No Longer Recognizes the PCR Test As a Valid Method for Detecting Confirmed Covid-19 Cases?
In the Course of the Next THREE DAYS the PCR test in the US will be Declared Invalid?
As of January 1, 2022, the CDC in a request to the FDA withdraws its endorsement of the RT-PCR test.
The CDC acknowledges that the PCR test does not effectively differentiate between Covid-19 and Seasonal Influenza. <<<<<>>>>>
Amply documented and analyzed by numerous scientists, the RT-PCR test does not detect or identify SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.
While the CDC does not officially acknowledge that the RT-PCR test is invalid, it nonetheless calls for it to be withdrawn.
It is worth noting that almost a year ago, in January 2021, the WHO also questioned the validity of the PCR test which it had itself put forth at the very outset of the covid crisis.
If the PCR test is invalid as suggested by the CDCs statement, the 260 Million so-called Confirmed Covid-19 Cases collected and tabulated Worldwide since the outset of the alleged pandemic are meaningless.
There is no Pandemic.
CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing. (emphasis added)
It has taken them almost two years to recognize that the PCR test is flawed and invalid.
Read carefully, what this CDC directive tacitly admits is that the PCR test cannot differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.
The bombshell is this test can't tell the difference between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses, lol?
"In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses."
CDC, same guys that couldn't come up with a legit test at the very beginning of this whole thing.
Now we see that even after a year, they still couldn't come up with a legit test?
And, how many of the 800,000 dead have misdiagnosed?
No worries, the guvmint knows what it's doing!
Even the inventor of the Kary Mullis who was a Nobel scientist ( 1993 Nobel in Chemistry for PCR development) had clearly objected to using PCR for detection of infectious diseases.
He died in August 2019 just before the plandemic hit.
He would have been a solid voice of reason to have early on to counter Frauduci.
Kary Mullis did NOT object to using PCR to detect infectious diseases. It's not even from Dr. Mullis. Rather, that often misquoted article, by misinformation sources, only asserts that PCR cannot tell if an individual is infectious of others--the accuracy and validity of PCR tests were not in question.
Yeah, i just wasted 3 minutes of my life fact checking... and another 4 minutes typing this up.
"Fact checks" are "opinions" generated by 3rd party "journalists" who have an agenda.
This is from new facebook CEO under oath in a recent defamation case.
Ignoring what Mullis did or did not say it's pretty clear right now that there are far too many asymptomatic positive test outcomes and PCR is at the center of controversy.
^^^ That's literally fake news, the print out of the "screenshot/document" they show is not from the VAERS website. Fact-checked and proven by multiple outlets, below is a a Reuters link without a pay-wall. It took 3s of Googling.
I'm AOK with the vax debate; the vaccines are definitely not for everyone that doesn't like having a high chance of living. However, at least lend some credibility to banned.com videos by fact-checking first.
I don't know why the CDC is changing its testing methodology, but it's not because PCR is an invalid testing method of measuring the presence of SARS-2. Clinically speaking, PCR has about an 80% sensitivity (percentage of true positives out of true positives + false negatives) and a 98-99% specificity (percentage of true negatives out of true negatives + false positives).
True, PCR would pick up SARS-2 after one was no longer infectious, but this still means the person was infected at one time.
Hmmm, I know more than 1 person who definitely had it at some point in the last 2 years (tested positive at the time) but more recent RT-PCR's are negative.
The only way I'm aware of that you can show previous infection is by antibody test for prior covid infection (vax antibodies show up different than infection antibodies)
However, if the antibodies have waned and no longer present, then you'd have to do a more complicated T/B-cell test to check immunity levels
So, natural immunity could be expensive to test for in large volumes. Same for older infection generated antibody-T/B-cell immunity
Besides the natural immunity testing issue, there are also a large number of natural immunity cases that have received only 1 of 2 jabs due to severe reaction from having had the infection and now having natural immunity (overproduction of antibodies)........these people are basically falling into a black hole.
Can't get an immunization card due to lacking the 1 needed shot but can't get the 1 needed shot due to physical reaction.
CDC makes no distinctions about any of this and I've spoken with county health department about it.
They say, get a note from your doctor.
HAHA, as if an airline or anybody is going to accept a note.
What I meant is that PCR can pick up SARS-2 if still in the body even if one is no longer infectious. This is just temporary. Didn't mean to make it sound permanent.
^When we're dealing with the lives of hundreds of thousands -- even possibly millions -- of people, as we were in the beginning of COVID, and some scientists are pushing "let 'er rip" narratives that will end up needlessly killing vulnerable people, you're damn right you got to move against it.
I challenge anyone to post a in full context a quote by ANY Dr. of note that said to allow the propagation of the virus throughout the population without taking any measures to protect the vulnerable population.
The problem about this all along is people want you to buy in to an arguement that firmly plants you on a side. If you believe Herd Immunity is achievable and worth pursuing the other side paints you as anti vax and heartless. If you believe an effort should have been made for vaccination then you are somehow gullible and ignoring the fact that government may or will or has overreached.
Fact is most of us are in the middle on this and both ends of the spectrum are ignoring our thoughts on the matter and discounting our experiences as ANECDOTAL. You cant argue with true believers on either side. And unfortunately they seem to be the ones that have the most influence.
^^When we're dealing with the lives of hundreds of thousands -- even possibly millions -- of people, as we were in the beginning of COVID, and some scientists are pushing "let 'er rip" narratives that will end up needlessly killing vulnerable people, you're damn right you got to move against it.
Fauci stated on the record that gain of function research was worth the risk of a pandemic occuring ....Id really appreciate some sober reflection on that point. Dont act all concerned about the loss of life and not even acknowledge the harm done by bug chasers like Fauci.
You can’t successfully protect the vulnerable population if you let a highly transmissible virus run virtually unchecked through a population. We used partial measures on the entire population, and a lot of vulnerable people still died.
The way contact networks of infections work, you can’t successfully do it. Vulnerable people are always going to have some contact with family, friends, etc…. Notice how waves tended to begin in the younger, healthier subpopulation, but eventually they made their way over to older folk, who were probably being more careful.
^^There’s a difference between what Fauci said because with gain of function research responsibly done, the risk of a pandemic is very, very, small (and thus worth the risk) versus when these “let er rip” guys said what they did, the chance of a disastrous outcome was very high.
Well we see the outcome of gain of function and the risk was/is not miniscule. What you call a let er rip is meme used to mock people with a different point of view. Fine plenty of that going around on both ends of the political spectrum ... just stop painting yourself as someone putting out only fact based when you make hyperbolic statements like dr.s said let er rip.... they didn't and you are spreading misinformation.
You should get your facts straight before you accuse someone of misinformation, but you are apparently too sloppy to do such a thing. I never said these doctors called their own strategy “let er rip.” I called their narrative “let we rip” because that is what it was in my opinion. They wanted to let COVID run unimpeded through the population while trying to insulate the vulnerable. That is an unworkable strategy that would have caused much misery and death.
And get your facts right about gain of function research. It is still uncertain this pandemic occurred because of gain of function research, but again you are fast and loose with the facts, or is it simply that you yourself are firmly on a side and are clueless when you think you are in the middle?
When people use the term “let er rip” strategy, experts clearly understand that we are talking about Scott Atlas’s and other’s strategy. See link.
No societal restrictions at all against COVID spread, even though we are all linked together through contact networks. We are left on our own to protect ourselves, which is made much harder with a virus running free.
I don’t print misinformation. I post opinions. “Let her rip” is an opinion. I do try to post facts as well in many of my posts, but I’m human and have opinions.
When the vulnerable are protected from serious disease by a vaccine (they are), monoclonal antibodies (only one still works with Omicron), and therapies (Paxlovid isn’t widely available yet), then the “let er rip” strategy will make sense.
before sept 1st 2020...there was no test necessary for dr to code death as covid
while it's a pandemic of course...we can't help but SEE very clearly all the potential background motivations...political (power/control) and money (there is a ton of money out there...trillions)
"I called their narrative “let 'em rip” because that is what it was in my opinion."
My equally valid opinion is that you're full of shit, NR...........sorry. I can smell you thru the internet.
I'm linking the Great Barrington Declaration so that any that are interested can read the so-called "let 'er rip" thesis.
900,000 signers from left, right and middle of the political spectrum covering every medical specialty you care to name. Maybe you need to read it NR and stop spouting your own personal form of opinion misinformation, which of course is based on your own biases, fallacies, political viewpoints, etc.
May I also recommend that you read "Rationality: What it is, Why it seems scarce, Why it matters" by Steven Pinker, also linked below. Understanding this would greatly help you understand why your statements are sometimes valid but not sound. There are over 200 cognitive biases, of which you display your fair share.
"And get your facts right about gain of function research. It is still uncertain this pandemic occurred because of gain of function research, but again you are fast and loose with the facts, or is it simply that you yourself are firmly on a side and are clueless when you think you are in the middle?"
You mean the virus never before found in a human..... that came from a bat .....found a thousand miles away from the research Institute of virology...... in the city where the first cases were reported.
I realize it's not that simple but it is in a sense it is and no matter how much you wanna baffle us with whatever you know you can't prove or disprove that.
I hear from Jon Stewart there's a breakout of choclatey goodness in Hershey Pennsylvania.... but you will probably tell me there's only anecdotal evidence of that.
I'm part of a clinical trial where every three months I get a full Moderna shot. I've been exposed to every strain of the Covid virus once a week as part of the study. I have yet to test positive for covid.
The majority of the people in the world are too stupid to understand virology. Fear, ignorance and selfishness are why all these conspiracy theories continue to misinform. When politics determine what science you choose to believe ---- you are doomed !
Wow interesting that when you simply disagree with someone, GBD, they all of a sudden lack rational thinking. Is that rational thinking?
The GBD sounds nice when you read it, but the fact is if you let society run normally in the presence of a highly transmissible virus, you will be letting the virus grow quasi-exponentially unencumbered in the population until it can’t find any more susceptible people. Fact. Since there are no controls by choice put on its growth by society, I think calling it “let er rip” is apt.
Of course the GBD wants to sound all nice, so they won’t use such language.
Interesting too, before the vaccine and medical therapeutics, I never really heard GBD-friendly politicians enact specific policies and programs that would protect vulnerable populations. It seemed like window dressing to me. Rather, they let vulnerable populations fend for themselves.
As for the lab leak hypothesis, someone who has done much research on this is geneticist Alina Chan. She knows more than most people about this. And this is what she concludes…
Nevertheless, "both scenarios are still on the table," says geneticist Chan. Chan says she herself hasn't reached any conclusions about whether a lab is responsible: "There's nothing that's a smoking gun," she says.
As I said, if you look at all the data, there remains significant uncertainty. If you choose to look at only circumstantial data that lends credibility to only one if the hypotheses, you should ask yourself why you are doing so, and are you really “in the middle” when it comes to COVID, or are you clearly taking sides.
The fact remains, those in the ICU and in the ground are predominantly the unvaccinated.
Hospitals in Red States are filling up with the unvaccinated, and some hospitals are running out of monoclonal antibody treatments.
All of you who risk being proof of Darwin's Theory of Evolution run a great risk, and also threaten the safety of others who are vaccinated, vaccinated and boosted, or who cannot get vaccinated.
Masks help. KN95, N95 and KF94 masks help a lot more.
The fact remains that Waterdisport22 propagates misinformation and likes to be the center of attention, as do others here. Whatever their motives, you can't change the facts above.
Monoclonal antibodies have been around long enough for us to have stockpiled them to a an appropriate level. It's the 8dea that vaccines and only vaccines will get us out of this that is the problem. Im not saying that you should lower the priority of vaccination but you damn sure be raising the priority of therapeutics. But ya know..... gubmint. That and if everyone is cured then we can't socially flog them and that's so much more fun.
If the spread is possible from jabbed to jabbed and unjabbed to unjabbed. Then the possibilities are endless. Regardless of the percentages or effectiveness. Right or wrong? We're all at risk in spite of the jab status.
Masks. "Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes. Face masks COMBINED with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus.
This from the Mayo Clinic, doesn't scream masks are an end to the pandemic. Theyre bold in saying Yes, but retract in the next sentence saying it takes more than a MASK.
How do we get past this push in one direction? We're not going back to "normal" life as we knew with this approach. Sure it's a grand idea. "Take a shot and end the Corona virus pandemic". But wait, we have not ended the regular flu yet.
).gif)