CDC to drop PCR Ct for post vaccination covid testing to 28.

"one set of rules for me, another for thee"

we have long known 2 things:

  1. sequencing genetic samples at a PCR Ct of 40 is a vastly oversensitive test

  2. the CDC and FDA have been putting thumbs on the scales every way they can

well, this is not a thumb, this is a full forearm. they are about to completely rig the societal-scale vaccine results and render them non-comparable by dropping the Ct from 40 (used for everyone thus far and, apparently, still to be used for the unvaccinated people) to 28 for those who have been vaccinated. you can see the new guidance HERE.

excerpt:

28 vs 40 Ct is a staggering difference. that’s 12 doublings.

this would mean that those who are not vaccinated will have their samples amplified 4,096X as much as those who were vaccinated.

the data will be completely non-comparable. this is not even apples and oranges, it’s apples and orangutans.

for those not familiar, PCR is performed because samples of mucus or saliva may not have enough viral genetic material to be detected. so a primer catalyzed heating and annealing process is used to amplify it (PCR-RT). each amplification doubles the source material from previous. so, it works like this:

the number of times it is amplified is called the cycle threshold (Ct). obviously, the more you amplify it, the more sensitive the test winds up being and the more likely it is to pick up non-clinical virus, viral fragments, etc and give a reading that is not exactly a false positive, as it did find RNA, but rather a false clinical positive (FCP) which means that it found non-viable virus material.

the gold standard test for this is to take the viral material and culture it. if the virus is “live” it will replicate. if not, it will remain inert which means that it cannot either make you ill or infect anyone else. no culture, no risk.

this has long been known and known to be an issue. the NYT published on it. so has the WHO (see more in the middle of this PIECE subsection “a word on PCR”) this was also baked into all the vaccine trials. they did not accept a positive PCR as a “case” they required symptomatic confirm.

now, they want to stack the deck still further and use a test that is 1/4000th the amplification to evaluate the vaccinated while continuing to use a massively over sensitive test to evaluate everyone else.

the variance on this rapidly becomes surreal and pretty much no one has managed to culture live virus from a sample requiring more than a 34 CT (and that is in absolutely perfect conditions). other recent STUDIES have failed to cultivate live virus above a 24 Ct. that’s 1/65,536 the the amplification of the 40 Ct used so commonly on the asymptomatic.

i mean, look, i am ALL for lowering the Ct on the covid tests. this should have been done from the start and only those people with symptoms should ever have been tested. this has been a crazy misuse of the test and had led to case, hospitalization, and deaths counts FAR in excess of any sort of remote reality.

had we used a 25 Ct from day one and only tested symptomatic (as much of asia did) the case count would have dropped by 70% at a bare minimum. 80-90% seems more likely given the reported asymptomatic rates. dropping PCR Ct to such a level has always made sense and will end this casedemic in big hurry.

if we’re going to do that, great, but to do it just for the vaccinated and not for the rest is straight up malfeasance.

the whole point of reporting post vaccination cases is to assess vaccine efficacy. to assess that efficacy, you need to compare it to a control set of either the unvaccinated or comprised of historical data. all that data came/will come from a test that was over 4,000X as amplified. this slants the outcomes incredibly toward vaccines and worse, queers the data so badly in one direction by an amount that cannot be predicted or adjusted out as to render it useless.

this is third grade science fair level stuff.

there is simply no possible way that any remotely reputable or knowledgeable researcher would advocate, allow, or accept this. it makes performing a meaningful comparison impossible and worse, it forever taints the data that’s gathered. if we do this, we are literally NEVER going to know if vaccines worked. NEVER.

i can think of no non-nefarious reason to choose this other than rank incompetence, and honestly, i’m struggling to even accept that one. not even the CDC is this bungling.

literally any scientist or lab tech would know not to do this.

of course, literally any politician or crony capitalist looking to push vaccines would absolutely know that doing this would make their preferred outcome look good.

you be the judge.

why this matters so much

at the end of the day, all personal and public health decisions come down to one thing:

cost benefit analysis.

what are the costs and risks of an action and what benefits does it provide? this is the only rational basis by which to assess alternatives.

but how, if the actual data is entirely slanted and corrupted are we to perform this analysis? how can we tell what is and is not a good idea?

we can’t.

and if we cannot, then we are left unable to evaluate and/or counter the moralistic and political claims about “societal benefit” peddled by agencies and “experts.” they have destroyed the facts we need to make good choices.

it astonishes me to hear public health officials lamenting the lack of public trust they enjoy.

it is all i can do not to bellow “really? what color is the sky on your world?” they have done absolutely nothing to earn it.

they have lied, prevaricated, and pivoted diametrically from one set of admonitions and demands to another without the slightest scientific rationale. don’t mask. mask. go on a cruise! it’s safe! it may be a year before you can leave the house! vaccines will give us our lives back. nope.

a real public health agency would be taking assiduous care to measure all the costs and all the benefits of every mitigation and strategy as accurately as humanly possible and making clear, data driven statements to allow people to assess risk and make the choices that are right for them.

instead the CDC and NIH repeatedly lie and publish JUNK STUDIES about ineffective mitigations like masks. they tell you that you must vaccinate but that when you do, it will not PROTECT YOU and you need to mask and distance.

how is anyone to extract sense from this fatuous miasma of ever-changing and internally contradictory dogmatic doggerel?

this has been a careening clown car from day one, driven and riven by political demands and patronage.

it has served as an engine of justification for political policies not a provider of data to inform them.

clearly, they have no plans to knock this off. it’s just more thumbs on more scales. this group has been so dishonest and reprehensible that it’s going to be a generation before any reasonable person trusts these agencies again.

redfield lied. walensky is lying. facui has been a one man highlight reel of mendacity.

this needs to be torn out, root and stem.

clearly, the whole leadership structures of these groups have been hopelessly corrupted and politicized. (much of the rank and file seem fine and i have spoken to many who have been looking in horror at how these agencies have behaved and what they have advocated)

this has become a top political issue of our times. remember this and vote accordingly before this calamitous clown car runs you over again.

the society you save may be your own.