@Kevin_McKernan Assuming you trust this Kevin guy … https://t.co/XYCBBpvuwl
RT @BastiatTheLaw: @ShivenChabria @Kevin_McKernan Roughly: At Ct=30, 20% of samples have viable virus (no culture) At Ct above 35, no sam…
@ShivenChabria @Kevin_McKernan Roughly: At Ct=30, 20% of samples have viable virus (no culture) At Ct above 35, no samples have viable virus. https://t.co/Ir6kB0RgXe https://t.co/baH6JF241w
RT @W3Mars: @blondejerseygrl @Wood_House76 2) reasonable to assume Cts from 16-28 are infections. Primer selection infers novel sequence. T…
@blondejerseygrl @Wood_House76 2) reasonable to assume Cts from 16-28 are infections. Primer selection infers novel sequence. The paper below explains. So PCR was used fraudulently to amplify case/death counts, or fraudulently attribute to C19 - but it's
@Cailzmaster @TakethatCt @ExtraDouble @Dr_Catfarmer @CommunityNotes In particular, they falsely claim that the following paper, https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE, establishes a 97% false positive rate for PCR. But anyone who can understand the paper realizes this is
@PRider1980 @Wood_House76 1) If you understand how PCR works, it becomes clear. This paper is instructive. A low cycle threshold (eg Ct=16) suggests a strong infection because a small number of amplification cycles allows detection. At Ct=16 the sample is
@hauxton @FightingHMRC @empiricallygood @Chuckwagonracer @Debunk_the_Funk @AlexBerenson For how many cycles? You might be right at less than 30 but at 35 cycles it’s a complete waste of time. We were running 40 cycles early in the pandemic https://t.co/2
RT @W3Mars: @NickHudsonCT @prwright55 @RWMaloneMD 2) Another point: PCR as used was flawed, but it does detect sequences. Replication compe…
@NickHudsonCT @prwright55 @RWMaloneMD 2) Another point: PCR as used was flawed, but it does detect sequences. Replication competence (ability to replicate samples in culture) followed Ct as expected. What was replicating? PCR primers are known. What else c
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
@mcfunny @NotSoFast12345 @alanlremick @TakethatCt @PRider1980 @CiaoBella444 June 2021 “At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.” https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
RT @jjcouey: Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything…
Cytopathic effect assays are not evidence of replicating virus without more corroboration. PCR is not confirmation of anything especially without nested primers. But if the OG source was a clone release, that’s the easiest explanation without alien tech.
@Wood_House76 @SmoleyDG @jjcouey @RepThomasMassie @SharylAttkisson Agreed no deadly virus. But what was the PCR test detecting & why were the samples replication competent for Ct < 25? PCR cant determine infection but it does detect RNA/DNA. Repli
@Immetjes Zie bijv. deze studie: https://t.co/ADEETAW1is. Als er geen manier is om vast te stellen wie nu echt Covid heeft en wie niet, is een ‘Covid-patiënt’ als meeteenheid onbetrouwbaar. En daarmee zijn ALLE data onbetrouwbaar. En daarom is, met alle re
@TakethatCt @alanlremick @NotSoFast12345 @PRider1980 @CiaoBella444 40… give me a break June 2021 “At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.” https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/6FBI4JFHkr https
@TakethatCt @NotSoFast12345 @alanlremick @PRider1980 @CiaoBella444 June 2021 At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive… https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP
@alanlremick @NotSoFast12345 @PRider1980 @CiaoBella444 They used 35 💡 Shit show https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/w6Qra1ZxZZ
@congtoukaishi @CommunityNotes There is no way to run PCR tests for SARS-COV-2 that will give a 97% false positive rate, as falsely claimed here. The claim that, past 24 cycles, PCR is only picking up "viral dust" is easily shown to be contradicted by th
@tomatokun419 @CommunityNotes There is no way to run PCR tests for SARS-COV-2 that will give a 97% false positive rate, as falsely claimed here. The claim that, past 24 cycles, PCR is only picking up "viral dust" is easily shown to be contradicted by the
@tomatokun419 @CommunityNotes There is no way to run PCR tests for SARS-COV-2 that will give a 97% false positive rate, as falsely claimed here. The claim that, past 24 cycles, PCR is only picking up "viral dust" is easily shown to be contradicted by the
@makotan2021 @CommunityNotes There is no way to run PCR tests for SARS-COV-2 that will give a 97% false positive rate, as falsely claimed here. The claim that, past 24 cycles, PCR is only picking up "viral dust" is easily shown to be contradicted by the
RT @VueDuQuebec: Test PCR LA faille de la Plandémie Une équipe de recherche d'Oxford a mesuré la charge d'ARN viral par culture cellulair…
RT @MagellansShip: @P_J_Buckhaults 3) A Ct of 35 or 45 is meaningless. Have you not read the studies showing the distribution of replicatio…
RT @MagellansShip: @P_J_Buckhaults 3) A Ct of 35 or 45 is meaningless. Have you not read the studies showing the distribution of replicatio…
@P_J_Buckhaults 3) A Ct of 35 or 45 is meaningless. Have you not read the studies showing the distribution of replication-competence vs Ct?! The PCR Test as used for C19 is highly flawed & only used to terrorize people. Treatment did not follow a posit
@ariccio @DhariLo @Novavax Correct T cell immunity is Robust & Durable Haven’t been sick & Never been tested for COVID the tests suck https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/lppVTDSEMb
@thisisnothappen @TakethatCt @Dozzle101 @rw_christian @KasiaBallou @pmcdunnough i suppose this is also meaningless. https://t.co/FhOL4rK6vd
@JohnDoomen1 @gtratwar @NOS Doe je huiswerk beter. Nu moet ik je echt in ieder bericht wijzen op fouten in je beweringen en argumenten. https://t.co/ADEETAW1is
@JohnDoomen1 @gtratwar @NOS Of PCR wel of niet geschikt is, is een andere discussie. PCR is in ieder geval niet betrouwbaar gebleken bij Covid. De diagn. sensitiviteit en specificiteit liggen heel laag. https://t.co/ADEETAW1is
@Jeff_mc2 @MrT @CommunityNotes It doesn't matter if you started with a "reliable reference" if you cite it for something it doesn't actually say. One EXTREMELY relevant example is a paper that multiple sources cite as a source for the myth of PCR having 97
@ABC Stop TESTING June 2021 “At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.” https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP
@CDCDirector June 2021 “At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.” https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/WtCY2vZ4QX
@TheChiefNerd STOP 🛑 TESTING FOR COVID & it will disappear https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/VD9BY6gBuK
@MartinZ_uncut un papier de l'IHU explique la valeur du CT de la PCR qu'ils ont sélectionnée https://t.co/9hY5j9E0Dq
@LMLYPN @canjetsfan @Treb35_ @Alchemywizzard @Debunk_the_Funk If we choose a LOW value for R, then the assertion "cases with values above R aren't actually significant" becomes nonsense. Remember that even up to Ct=32, Jaafar et al was STILL finding 20% of
@JeromeAdamsMD @libertarian1231 PCR tests are crap 💩 https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/gUniT2s3o3
@JeromeAdamsMD @libertarian1231 PCR tests are crap 💩 https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/PmysiEUiiU
Here's my thread on the PCR scam which explains the cycling threshold errors. https://t.co/XKnVJpKqYN
@HansKoppies @rubenivangaalen @johanknorberg Discussies over dergelijke data zijn zinloos. Er bestaat geen diagnostiek voor Covid met een vastgestelde betrouwbaarheidsfactor. Die is door o.a. verkeerd testbeleid ook niet zomaar terug te rekenen. De theori
@CarDen1974 Pas een beetje logica toe en je snapt dat dat bijna een automatisch gevolg is, zoals ik hier al zei: https://t.co/i2S0HI4TKA
@CarDen1974 Als de kans op vals positieve testen heel hoog ligt (ik verwijs nogmaals hiernaar: https://t.co/ADEETAWz80) ligt bijna automatisch de kans op vals negatieve testen heel laag, omdat de prevalentie van het ziektebeeld dan ook laag ligt. Dat is el
@CarDen1974 Wat je probeert te doen, is totaal irrelevant voor de discussie. Dit wel: https://t.co/ADEETAW1is
RT @Max57125367: @JesseBWatters @JulieBanderas @HARRISFAULKNER @EmilyCompagno @DanaPerino @MariaBartiromo
@JesseBWatters @JulieBanderas @HARRISFAULKNER @EmilyCompagno @DanaPerino @MariaBartiromo
RT @Lucky17171717: @MdBreathe Also remember Testing is how panic is created https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/hUM6EYrJkW
RT @Lucky17171717: @MdBreathe Also remember Testing is how panic is created https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/hUM6EYrJkW
@CarDen1974 @patricksavalle Vertel mij dan de diagnostische specificiteit van de test als er een grote afwijkende correlatie is tussen de verschijnselen van Covid en positieve testuitslagen zoals aangetoond in de enige directe grootschalige studie ernaar.
@MdBreathe Also remember Testing is how panic is created https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/hUM6EYrJkW
@dramerling @twc_health @TWCCanadaHealth @FatEmperor @P_McCulloughMD @DrHarveyRisch How about NEVER GET A PCR TEST? https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/6pwlZfpvFt
@Dt_Aerzteblatt @Dt_Aerzteblatt welche CT-Werte werden bei den Tests verwendet ? Bitte um Hersteller-Angaben. CT ab 30 war ja glaub ich nur 60 % genau. 2 Studien hierzu. https://t.co/D8pZNqW3uH https://t.co/D78pfEKyoA https://t.co/9c30UPmw2C
@Mikeska @JeromeAdamsMD June 2021 At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive… https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP
@TakethatCt @DrEricDing @CDCgov "It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are pos
@DrEricDing @CDCgov Actually, it worked perfectly. Yale was running PCR tests at 40 cycles - they knew perfectly well that they would generate 90% false positives. We needed to make sure that fear remained high! https://t.co/XSm7aoupoE
RT @Lucky17171717: @catmrow0 @AlBowers1 @WarClandestine They’ll crank up the Cycle Threshold on a lousy PCR TEST & boom..there will be a “s…
RT @Lucky17171717: @catmrow0 @AlBowers1 @WarClandestine They’ll crank up the Cycle Threshold on a lousy PCR TEST & boom..there will be a “s…
@catmrow0 @AlBowers1 @WarClandestine They’ll crank up the Cycle Threshold on a lousy PCR TEST & boom..there will be a “surge” https://t.co/eUsB8NHVRP https://t.co/FOAB2m6Kb8
RT @RobyFranois2: @gkierzek @vince8004 Que les personnes les plus vulnérables nécessitent chaque année des soins d'urgence est une évidence…
@gkierzek @vince8004 Que les personnes les plus vulnérables nécessitent chaque année des soins d'urgence est une évidence. Que les "vaccins" Covid aient bousillé le système immunitaire devrait en être une autre. Et que les tests Covid soient à prendre avec
@CarlaPeeters3 Ben je bekend met deze studie: https://t.co/ADEETAW1is
@QuadriviumQuis @ImAtSeaAgain @CartlandDavid Remember this paper you posted? https://t.co/tIfMB5jtof 3,790 samples, with cycle thresholds between 11 and 37. All testing was presumably done for the same number of cycles - otherwise it would have been scien
@JDCBurnhil @CartlandDavid 97 percent of false positives for infectiousness, as only 3% of positive results were still positive at the correct cycle , learn to read and count https://t.co/pz37oZ7NTK
@ArgentZephyr @KJPsNotebook @RJ_NerdDad @SenRonJohnson @US_FDA Covid PCR tests 97% false positives. https://t.co/dn7P1iS2Sg
@WayneVande1988 @Dozzle101 @TakethatCt @thisisnothappen @DailyWireNews B) If Mullis HAD said it, the evidence would have shown him wrong. Even in these samples, all taken from recovering patients and thus biased towards low CTs meaning non-infectivity - ar
@CartlandDavid The PCR test used to diagnose an infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was found to have as high as 97 percent of false positives for infectiousness because the test was so sensitive that it measured dead viruses https:/
@FHeijblom @LieveToet @Hb00668007 @Symph0ny3 @Debunk_the_Funk We zagen een toename in het aantal positief geteste mensen. Na maanden van bijna niet testen, ging men over op massaal testen. Er is een lage correlatie tussen positief getesten en mensen met ee
@LieveToet @Hb00668007 @Symph0ny3 Ik weet dat je het niet wilt weten of lezen, maar er is maar 1 grootschalige studie gedaan naar de correlatie tussen Covid als ziektebeeld en een positieve uitslag. En die correlatie is uitzonderlijk laag. De kans op vals
@FHeijblom @LieveToet @Hb00668007 @Symph0ny3 @Debunk_the_Funk En van die test weten we dat die zo slecht is opgesteld dat hij ONMOGELIJK een nauwkeurige, valide diagnose kan geven. Er is, gezien op grote schaal, een hele lage correlatie tussen ziekte en po
@LieveToet @Hb00668007 @Symph0ny3 Nee. Hoe bepaal je wat Covid is? Het is klinisch niet van griep/ atypische longontsteking te onderscheiden. Het enige verschil is een PCR-test. Met 1 klein probleempje: er is een extreem lage correlatie tussen ziekte en po
@Earthciteyezen @killer_marmot @Johnincarlisle @YouTube Yes, it is. If you look at the evidentiary basis for your claim that doing PCR wrong "delivers a 97% false + rate", you'll find that it comes back to this paper: Correlation Between 3790 Quantitativ
@MarcusFrey_KA @kutschera_u Natürlich lügt er wieder https://t.co/LeXGNmMxPD
@rubenrivera @realpuchito @HLGatell El 97% daba falso positivo en los PCR basados en el Gen N, como el que se avalo en México (test Corman Drosten) pero igual Gatell nunca tuvo cerebro para explicar sus argumentos porque es un vil burócrata, no es un cient
@mebaruhirame @nasitaro PCR 35サイクル以上のPCR検査は陽性結果の97%が偽陽性 PCR検査の偽陽性が大幅に増える理由 国会答弁「PCR検査の陽性判定=ウイルスの感染性の証明ではない」 CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT Corman-Drosten論文の利益相反 https://t.co/MGAW9Dv4if
@h1tom1 @Thisism52484303 PCR 35サイクル以上のPCR検査は陽性結果の97%が偽陽性 PCR検査の偽陽性が大幅に増える理由 国会答弁「PCR検査の陽性判定=ウイルスの感染性の証明ではない」 CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT Corman-Drosten論文の利益相反 https://t.co/MGAW9Dv4if
RT @MaasdamNoel: @CarlaPeeters3 Covid is een herbenoeming van wat al bestond. Klinisch gelijk aan griep/ atypische longontsteking en testen…
@CarlaPeeters3 Covid is een herbenoeming van wat al bestond. Klinisch gelijk aan griep/ atypische longontsteking en testen zijn diagnostisch zo onspecifiek als maar zijn kan (https://t.co/ADEETAW1is). De test creëert ‘Covid’; niet e.o.a. virus of nieuwe zi
@StabellBenn @pederhvelplund @RasmusJarlov De to omtalte studier: https://t.co/j38AdOnPie og https://t.co/LTz7cqfPgK opstiller endvidere regressionsmodeller med R2 på hhv. 0,9952 og 0,8899
@GWKnottnerus @Raymon49002914 @JanPeterRake Waar Covid helemaal mank gaat, is de diagnostiek. Wat is Covid? Het is klinisch niet te onderscheiden en dus moet men vertrouwen op een test. Maar die blijkt in de praktijk dus alles behalve een betrouwbaar diagn
@SwaledaleMutton @jason_willz1 @KathyJo88283015 @DowdEdward @LondonRealTV Amplify above 15 cycles and above and the false positives grow like mushrooms. That is EXACTLY what they were doing. https://t.co/6ZklT6Eay2
@StabellBenn @pederhvelplund @RasmusJarlov Men Christine, er det korrekt, at Ct=35 medfører falsk positiv på ca. 97%? - jf. https://t.co/YooKFSPUnm https://t.co/LTz7cqfPgK. Er det dermed korrekt, at den irske model foreslår isolation af personer der testes
@Rolo_Tamasi @sanjay_world @goddeketal Well, if you consider less than 3% accuracy as an “extraordinarily accurate test”…. “At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.“ https://t.co/qyf0TjPMSo
@nestroom @anatwitje @ADnl Ik ken geen ongevaccineerden die aan Covid zijn overleden. Covid is sowieso geen goed gedefinieerde ziekte. Het kan van alles zijn. Het enige criterium is een pos. PCR-test. Daarvan weten we nu dat ie weinig tot geen diagn. waard