Previously with no other virus or disease have RT-PCR tests been used exclusively to determine cases of infection and illness. Every case of infection also isn’t a case of illness. But that distinction has rarely been made.

An interesting thing with RT-PCR testing is that it actually doesn’t specifically test for live intact infectious virus. Nope, it tests for any DNA of the virus present including fragments dead or alive. And the more cycle thresholds, the more it has to amplify any such viral DNA to detect it. Every additional cycle threshold [CT] doubles the prior amplification. The higher the CT number, the more amplification is necessary to detect any portion of viral DNA.

Now in the United States the CDC is using a CT of 28 or less for to determine positively for “break through cases” (see   https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf ).  In January, the number was lowered to 32 CT’s. Previously CT’s as high as 45 were used. So a positive at a CT of 34 is a likely now a negative at 28. So essentially, at least, 45 to 60% of prior positive asymptomatic cases are now considered negative.

So, the number of cases when case curves came down in January also was a factor of testing with lower cycle thresholds and fewer tests being conducted or, in other words, due statistical “changes”.

Though, to remain objective, it also needs to be noted, that someone tested early at a higher CT, who would be considered negative, could later have an increase in viral load after a few days of viral incubation. So, such a person may then later require fewer cycles (a lower CT) to detect any viral DNA. In other words, an initial asymptomatic negative might turn into an asymptomatic or symptomatic positive (as discussed in first article and the study below).

CT’s from lab to lab for test also aren’t always consistent, since they use different RT-PCR tests that have slightly different protocols. So 28 cycle thresholds at one lab using one test may be 34 cycle thresholds at another lab using other protocols (see video below).

From a media manufacturing consent perspective, it’s interesting how incessant reporting of case numbers going up and down have been used to either heightened or alleviate fears and concerns.

Anyhow if you’re interested, here below are some references I’ve read.

First a good and pretty objective Medium post on this subject https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/is-coronavirus-pcr-test-a-fraud-an-objective-look-into-why-people-insist-so-fba67dd70fc3

Next an article explaining some of the problems with PCR testing:

The Problems with the COVID-19 Test: A Necessary Understanding

A March 2020 study from China that notes RT-PCR tests should also be confirmed by other testing that notes the following https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25786

“..Our results indicate that in addition to the emphasis on RT-PCR testing, clinical indicators such as computed tomography images should also be used not only for diagnosis and treatment but also for isolation, recovery/discharge, and transferring for hospitalized patients clinically diagnosed with COVID-19 during the current epidemic…”

Tomography, as defined by Wikipedia, is Tomography is imaging by sections or sectioning through the use of any kind of penetrating wave, for example, like radiology (X-rays).

Plus a video showing some good graphics indicating CT’s curves as well as some of the uncertainty and variability of the accuracy of the reading based on the location the swabbing occurs and which RT-PCR test is used.

https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/947296_2



####