@KPrice1234 @BidenHQ We all Remember “Dying WITH Covid” At the time of death it was a positive COVID test (and we all remember how reliable testing was at a 35 cycle threshold) https://t.co/WUhLT2df5j https://t.co/FeSNuiZ138
@kacdnp91 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
@kacdnp91 I Never Took a Single C-19 Test Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus 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
@kingradeon @cryptoisnotvirt Ct値とは検体内のウイルス量を示す値です Ct35以上で検出された場合でも統計上3~5%は培養陽性(感染性あり)として検出されています https://t.co/6wQcnlFuUK
RT @JDCBurnhil: @cedean99 @TakethatCt @CarstensenPovl @Truth_in_Number No, you just have to understand that cycle count and Ct are two diff…
@welt Unfassbar. Auch das PCR-Setting war hierbei unglücklich (Massentests). Ergebnisse von PCR-Tests allein hatten mMn eine zu geringe Aussagekraft (vgl auch ct-Wert), um damit Maßnahmen zur Pandemiebekämpfung zu begründen (Quelle in 9/11 Uni Duisburg-Ess
RT @keisuke4713: 🇲🇾BNT162b2(B) vs CoronaVac(CV) vs ChAdOx1-S(CA)💉 コロナBreakthrough https://t.co/bx9UZoVa39 突破感染迄 CV94.09±48.71 CA90.80±37.5…
🇲🇾BNT162b2(B) vs CoronaVac(CV) vs ChAdOx1-S(CA)💉 コロナBreakthrough https://t.co/bx9UZoVa39 突破感染迄 CV94.09±48.71 CA90.80±37.59<B128.47±46.21日 ICU,🙏,💉関連は見発見 種類,変異種,民族,高血圧が重症度の予測因子 CV:重症感染が有意⬆️ 🇮🇳人:重症感染83%⬇️ 高血圧は重症感染がほぼ3倍⬆️ https://t.co/4DIIioyT6y
"...the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]" [1] https://t.co/p36jxnHWiF [3] https://t.co/paRJRPkXhm 3/3
@TakethatCt @bigmac170904 @StochasticUltra @skepticalraptor That blanket statement is lie, why? At what cycle rate? https://t.co/2Q0s0brI9F https://t.co/lLHNG2wqaB
@ZlZabcAmcfTRtCF @DeLaRue_Nyanko 読みました。 「遺伝子の断片を複製して増幅を繰り返す過程を35回以上繰り返すと不活、35回以下なら活性と判定できる論拠」にあたる部分を私は論文から読み取れないので、引用要約していただければ幸いです。 https://t.co/xw1Au1Dfae
@gunjou999 @DeLaRue_Nyanko 先ほどもCt値と活性不活性の関連性を示す論文を提示したのですけど? 読みました? 再掲します https://t.co/6wQcnlFuUK
@gunjou999 @DeLaRue_Nyanko @BB45_Colorado 統計上Ct35以下は活性 35以上での検出の場合でも活性の場合があり得る https://t.co/6wQcnlFuUK
@JTPilli @andyy4truth Osaatko tulkita tätä? https://t.co/g977vwly61
@VoteoutTrudeau @P_J_Buckhaults @SJPontes @Fynnderella1 @DrJBhattacharya https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE <= counter-evidence.
@SJPontes @VoteoutTrudeau @P_J_Buckhaults @Fynnderella1 @DrJBhattacharya The urban myth that high cycle count was associated with a high rate of false positives comes from misreading this study: https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE As you can tell immediately, it actu
@tonyroberts63 @TakethatCt @drtomcowan @Debunk_the_Funk Figure 1 shows exactly this. Despite, the same conditions and a smaple coming from a patient, the high ct values or negative tests fail to produce CPE in culture. Again we have the exact data you ar
@CarpentrySol This is the original study. It involves 3,790 samples. NOT ONE was a false positive. THAT ALONE makes "there's an N% probability of a false positive" an IMPOSSIBLE conclusion to reasonably draw. There is, however, more. https://t.co/WDZ1
@RAMCYZKMYSELF @ornery_owls Kari objected to. I read through Deadly Deception by Robert Wilner when COVID was fresh bc it seemed so parallel. Then I read a bunch of peer-reviewed research including this one, https://t.co/MPbngl3h8Z , to me it totally inv
@cedean99 @TakethatCt @CarstensenPovl @Truth_in_Number No, you just have to understand that cycle count and Ct are two different things - that you could run 3,790 samples for at least 37 cycles and get Cts varying as low as 11 or high as 37. Like they did
@crabb_vicki @MaxieJaxn Oh ffs. Over cycling was very much a thing, Crabb. Anything over 25 was suspect. https://t.co/r7ztTmZaMa
@Tidoggg @stkirsch https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE <= anyone can check the article for themselves and verify: it doesn't even mention false positives, much less somehow establish a pattern of them.
@DarinPope7 @Lindademocat @MikeSington "They ran the test at 35 cycles to force positive results." BS. Here's a study where ALL the 3,790 samples were run for at least 37 cycles, and it didn't "force positive results". You've swallowed a lot of baloney. h
@cistitispe Miksi levität hevonpaskaa? https://t.co/q4R4AGdwI3
@LatinoLate "At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive." Suomessakin käytettiin jopa 45 monistuskertaa. PCR ei sovellu diagnostiikkaan. https://t.co/g977vwly61
@kevinandre0834 @thisisnothappen @elogforfreedom @BluReign4455 @KastmanMelonie @ImMeme0 https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE Can you count the number of positives, *confirmed by culture*, that came from samples with Ct > 30? ///
RT @SpunkyStrings: @sven_muylle Over die Port.rechtszaak en hun gebruikte studie heb ik vaker gepost, lang geleden al. Hierbij maakte ik ge…
RT @SpunkyStrings: @sven_muylle Over die Port.rechtszaak en hun gebruikte studie heb ik vaker gepost, lang geleden al. Hierbij maakte ik ge…
@sven_muylle Over die Port.rechtszaak en hun gebruikte studie heb ik vaker gepost, lang geleden al. Hierbij maakte ik gebruik v onderstaande bronnen: -https://t.co/hTXE5PeZuV (deze studie mbt cut-off 35c 97% vals+ & 45c 100% vals+ gaf ik ook door vr o
@JDCBurnhil That study may have been trying to determine duration of likely infectiousness due to viral load, it also showed the dramatic difference in viral culture vs no culture for positive PCR sample depending on Ct. https://t.co/FznYJqwt10
@oliviashouse6 @DrBenTapper1 You are right about that but the discussion should be if positives from high Ct correlates with disease and infectivity. They could only cultivate virus from 3% of positives with a Ct of 35 in this study. Thoughts? https://t.c
@ClavitoQue @CarmenSousaTacn @MariolySosaP Aquí encontré el estudio, por si alguien quiere leerlo. https://t.co/VKei0CsCz7
RT @Abettervision: @mrsabrabbit @esme_saysno This one is open and shut. The pretend pandemic. No flu statistics in Canada for those three y…
RT @Abettervision: @mrsabrabbit @esme_saysno This one is open and shut. The pretend pandemic. No flu statistics in Canada for those three y…
RT @Abettervision: @mrsabrabbit @esme_saysno This one is open and shut. The pretend pandemic. No flu statistics in Canada for those three y…
@mrsabrabbit @esme_saysno This one is open and shut. The pretend pandemic. No flu statistics in Canada for those three years. The PCR test used about 45 cycles across Canada and anything over 30 cycles was 80% false positives. REF. https://t.co/LJVrsL3iK
@myletrinh123 @AnnieWillow7 @mcfunny 17 cycles?! Absurd. Read this article and see how many infectious cases would have been missed by irresponsibly running only 17 cycles: https://t.co/hHI6J9eBR3
@McdaidMich3585 @DaveFre47942720 @SBoona @beverleyturner @BlokeOnWheels @doctor_oxford None of that is true. Mullis didn't say anything about "more than 27 cycles", and there is no number of cycles that produces 97% false positives - THAT comes from misrea
@RegulaAnates @IanCopeland5 @joerogan @BretWeinstein Damn, I went and got the link and forgot to paste it into the tweet: https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE
@MargotCBoyd @TakethatCt @theaaronbinder @CP24 Read this paper and see how many infectious cases of COVID-19 you would have sent out to mingle in public by running only 28 cycles (it's a lot). https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE If that article is too hard for you to
@fla_wurr Then why does it correlate with postive viral cultures and symptoms in sick individuals r² = 0.955 https://t.co/Jp6HUtUDlm
@Douglas1494254 @fiery1357 BS. The "source" for the myth of 97% false positives when tests are run for 35 or more cycles is this paper: https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE But the myth misinterprets the paper badly: A) ALL of their samples were run for the same number
@WaltMhisky @TakethatCt @Philipz101 @wolsned You don't have to believe me at all. Check the original paper. https://t.co/tIfMB5jtof You'll see there's no mention of false positives. You'll also see that the three columns where Ct >= 35 account for only
RT @norman_pilon: @broadstairsj73 @NickHudsonCT Explain the clinical manifestation of "happy hypoxia" and the fact that Didier Raoult et al…
@broadstairsj73 @NickHudsonCT Explain the clinical manifestation of "happy hypoxia" and the fact that Didier Raoult et al. were able to correlate PCT cycles to viable cultures of the virus. I'll wait. A) https://t.co/Y42QBBr0Tx B) https://t.co/r7ztTmZaMa
@GovEvers Covid PCR tests 97% false positives. https://t.co/dn7P1iS2Sg
@JDCBurnhil @LolaH1323 @CommunityNotes run it 35-40 cycles and it will come up with "something"....maybe the residue from a cold you had six months ago, but they will call it Covid. No way can you tell it's covid with a PCR test, because there is no virus.
@Fietsbel11 @MaasdamNoel @anatwitje He's repeating a myth that comes from misreading this study: https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE The study had 3,790 samples. Just 104 of them fell into the category "Ct >= 35". 97% of samples IN THAT CATEGORY could not be cul
@Voggasm @MurielBlaivePhD @DrJBhattacharya If you already understand what cycle threshold ACTUALLY is, all you need to do is look at SPR's purported source (https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE) to see how it's misrepresented. Only 104 samples were Ct >= 34! That's
@P_J_Buckhaults @BretWeinstein Of course, it's real: ==>https://t.co/jOkyvbx3kP And the fallout from an infectious engineered pathogen that appears to be prionogenic and amyloidogenic remains ahead in years and decades to come: A)https://t.co/2eBvQJ5
@RealDrJaneRuby @NickHudsonCT @RobertKennedyJr @RWMaloneMD @Kevin_McKernan @BretWeinstein @P_McCulloughMD replicated an experiment demonstrating a correlation between PCR cycles and positive cell cultures. (See this: https://t.co/r7ztTmZaMa). So there is d
RT @SamParkerSenate: 1. "At C(ycle)t(hreshold) = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive."…
@DocDeezWhat @HiSun2020 “when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.” https://t.co/qyf0TjPMSo
@JDCBurnhil @subboy777 @MissAMD1962 Nope 👉🏾Tell your troll farm supervisor you need better gaslighting training 🤣 https://t.co/hEcDJmepSM https://t.co/a5HivBzFjm
@subboy777 @MissAMD1962 @subboy777 👉🏾In other words, according to this data... the PCR is so oversensitive that over 97% of positive results are inaccurately labeled "infection." 45 CT = tool of fraud to create a “casedemic” https://t.co/hEcDJmepSM http
@Censored4sure @EdV1694 What cycle threshold were the PCR tests used at?🤔 👉🏾Using the PCR test at 35-40 cycles = 97% false positive https://t.co/hEcDJmepSM https://t.co/NWhcXAHLD0
@RawGarlicMeds @BreezerGalway @Haddagor @TakethatCt "labs were running the pcr tests at 35 cycles or higher? true." True. "at that many cycles you start to produce false positives at a rate of 97%." BZZZZZZZT, wrong, easily proven wrong. All these 3,79
@DocAhmadMalik Of course the PCR test could also pick up fragments of virus ! but the Ct score was also set so high (40 in some countries) that the results were meaningless. There is a nice paper by Jaafar that we have extensively quoted in our work on t
@lopes20192 @karinamichelin CONTINUAÇÃO... para o vírus em atividade, mas eram positivos para fragmentos do Covid-19 ou para fragmentos genéticos que simulavam uma presença do vírus – quando, na verdade, o vírus nunca esteve ali. Fonte: https://t.co/bk4xO
@DrakeRyder69 @TakethatCt @LockhartCindy60 @CommunityNotes She merely referred to "a study funded by the French government". Why didn't she give you the URL, like I'm willing to do right now?: Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction
@FVE1234 @IanCopeland5 @CryptoFLmoon https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE <= Really? Because this published data says you're wrong. Count up the culturable (i.e. infectious) positives found at Ct values above 20. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
@paulbee82849197 @DarleneDempsey6 @IanCopeland5 @CryptoFLmoon "DNA sequence should be amplified at 28" That would be a bad idea, whether you're talking about running only 28 cycles or setting the Ct cutoff to 28. Either way, you'd be setting the test to m
@dbseigmour @ChantelleBakerr Even if you believe RT-PCR tests can detect the Covid virus there are critical flaws: https://t.co/bhQHAH95HT, https://t.co/3OUHc8LdzC and https://t.co/kwdlyeIvd1
@FringeViews Did my own thread in 2020 exposing the PCR testing fraud. Unfortunately, by then I had been shadow-banned and almost no one saw it. Much of this info is still relevant. https://t.co/XKnVJpKqYN
@TakethatCt @unmasking_media @WHO This is the last time I’m going to reply to you. I’ve presented plenty of evidence to support my earlier statements. At this point you’re just trolling. https://t.co/Db5bDWcDlA https://t.co/pqFpyswYyK https://t.co/gac
@zinko4x @Janine_1801 Nope, that's a myth. It comes from misreading a French paper where ALL 3,790 samples were collected under the same settings, but 97% **of 2.8%** of the dataset were unculturable (not "false") positives. https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE
@angryfromeston @realGeorgeBShaw @irishbogman @BGatesIsaPyscho Okay, I've given you 2 hours, instead of the 20-something minutes you gave me, and you absolutely failed to support your claim that 40 PCR cycles leads to 97% false positives. So now I'm going
@dragonfishy @CartlandDavid We knew in May 2020 that it was scientific fraud. https://t.co/yd5Mjfdw3C https://t.co/VJ1vPUnpvv
RT @QuadriviumQuis: @claushetting For all the #Asymptomatic The PCR test used to diagnose an infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caus…
@TakethatCt @thisisnothappen @LBower32390965 @sjs856 @MikeMatull 👉🏾Like I said 35 CT or Higher = 97% false positive. 👉🏾In other words, according to this data... the PCR is so oversensitive that over 97% of positive results are inaccurately labeled "infect
CDC COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough case investigation 💉者PCR検査CT値閾値28が使用 *CDCガイドライン Covid-19統計を水増しにCT値40以上を設定 CT値40は偽陽性率97% https://t.co/6lVX7HAqs7 https://t.co/q5kanTgzmE
@poppy_haze @ACleverNickname “At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive“ https://t.co/qyf0TjPMSo https://t.co/veMr1j0TO3
@brillinger60454 @JaniceW78256134 @SaiKate108 The sample from the patient is placed in culture. If virions are present, they will replicate in the culture medium. PCR doesn't need whole intact virions to test positive, only "fragments." https://t.co/90Zt
@bambkb OVER 97% false positives at Ct35. "At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive." https://t.co/qyf0TjPMSo
5/11 Bei Ct = 25 bleiben bis zu 70 % der Patienten in der Kultur pos. Bei einem Ct = 30 sinkt der Wert auf 20 %. Bei Ct = 35 sind nur noch <3 % der Kulturen positiv. https://t.co/33myTH7pvr https://t.co/8qaIo6TqZc
@anatwitje Er is geen klinisch verschil met griep. Het enige verschil is een PCR-uitslag. En daarvan weten we nu dat de diagn. betrouwbaarheid zo laag ligt dat je er geen betekenis aan kan ontlenen. https://t.co/2XYw9XuWPU.
@rasored @lee_borden @CommunityNotes the science. They were purporting to cite this paper, but totally misrepresented it: for starters, it doesn't deal with even ONE false positive, much less establish a pattern of 97% of them. https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE ///
@SlayVIROLOGY @redheadlass1402 @rubrogram @gzxyience @xeal_ @CommunityNotes Then it's high time you checked the paper the judges claimed they were citing. https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE It's not the easiest paper to read, so anyone who has trouble, feel free to a
@SlayVIROLOGY @CartlandDavid @CommunityNotes Yes, that's what the judges said, and they're wrong, because they claimed to be interpreting this paper, which doesn't deal with ANY false positives. 3,790 samples; NO false positives. https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE
@ToLOVEisaVerb @JennieWillems @PostvanFenna @CommunityNotes You're repeating a lot of false rumors. Merely running for "too many cycles" will not produce false qPCR positives, and it's VERY easy to demonstrate that the limit wouldn't be 25/30 cycles, even
@adsads273571 @Dozzle101 @CartlandDavid Easily proven false. About 20% of the samples in this dataset were over Ct = 25 and verified by culture as true positives. You don't know what you're talking about. https://t.co/WDZ17ug89c
@GalvezDidier1 @FrancoiDucrocq @CommunityNotes If this is the study in question - https://t.co/WDZ17ufAjE - its results do not support the claims made.
@NickHudsonCT I don't want this to get lost in your notices... How can we explain away this evidence which conflicts with your statement "there was no pandemic"? The paradoxical evidence should lead our thinking until the paradoxes are resolved. Do you ag
@thisisnothappen @thelivingstone5 @NickHudsonCT @ichudov The case/death numbers were fraudulent because Cts > 28 were likely not infections. 28 is an arbitrary number. One could select 26 or 30. Studies showed that at Ct=25 70% of the samples could repl
RT @W3Mars: @NickHudsonCT @ichudov 1) My point is not to debate the definition - but to get you to address the solid fact that something no…
@JamesSchouw @NickHudsonCT @ichudov 1) I agree, PCR doesn't diag disease. But it does detect a unique sequence. Cultured samples replicate in inverse proportion to Ct. The primers are published. Explain what PCR is detecting or accept it is detecting a nov
@JamesSchouw @NickHudsonCT @ichudov 1) PCR was *used* fraudulently because high Ct (>28) was included as "positive." PCR can't detect infxn but it can detect a sequence. The samples are replication-competent (more virus grows in culture). PCR goes negat
6) What evidence do we have that people were infected with the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus? 🚨Understand this paper and Figure 1. 💥PCR+ samples can successfully culture (grow more virus) [inversely proportional to Ct]. 💥Patients are PCR- in 2nd week. https://t
@NickHudsonCT @ichudov 1) My point is not to debate the definition - but to get you to address the solid fact that something novel was infecting people. Take the time to understand this paper & Figure 1. What is PCR detecting that is replication-compet
13.On What Basis Did Pfizer Claim 95%? •https://t.co/iq5Lw9t60i •https://t.co/s1LjXIDI6a •https://t.co/maHVDdfzZl •https://t.co/eEbrOWSIRV
@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…
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