All Things Coronavirus (Part 2)

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

Wasn't someone here recently talking about how falsely inflated covid case counts were, and how the PCR tests themselves are highly inaccurate?  And now it seems that the inserts that come with the tests say NOT to use them for covid testing.  

 

Quote

The emergency declaration and its multiple renewals are illegal, since in fact there is no underlying emergency. Assuming the accuracy of Defendants’ COVID-19 death data, SARSCoV-2 has an overall survivability rate of 99.8% globally, which increases to 99.97% for persons under the age of 70, on a par with the seasonal flu. However, Defendants’ data is deliberately inflated. On March 24, 2020, DHHS changed the rules applicable to coroners and others responsible for producing death certificates and making “cause of death” determinations — exclusively for COVID-19. The rule change states: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”

 

In fact, DHHS statistics show that 95% of deaths classed as “COVID-19 deaths” involve an average of four additional co-morbidities. The CDC knew “…the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.” Similarly, the actual number of COVID-19 “cases” is far lower than the reported number. DHHS authorized the emergency use of the polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) test as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19, with disastrous consequences.

 

The PCR tests are themselves experimental products, authorized by the FDA under separate EUAs. PCR test manufacturers use disclaimers like this in their product manuals: “[t]he FDA has not determined that the test is safe or effective for the detection of SARS-Co-V-2.” Manufacturer inserts furnished with PCR test products include disclaimers stating that the PCR tests should NOT be used to diagnose COVID-19. This is consistent with the warning issued by the Nobel Prize winning inventor of the PCR test that such tests are not appropriate for diagnosing disease.

 

The way in which the PCR tests are administered guaranties an unacceptably high number of false positive results. Cycle Threshold Value (“CT value”) is essentially the number of times that a sample (usually from a nasal swab) is magnified or amplified before a fragment of viral RNA is detected. The CT Value is exponential, and so a 40-cycle threshold means that the sample is magnified around a trillion times. The higher the CT Value, the less likely the detected fragment of viral RNA is intact, alive and infectious.5 Virtually all scientists, including Dr. Fauci, agree that any PCR test run at a CT value of 35-cycles or greater is useless. Dr. Fauci has stated (emphasis below added): What is now evolving into a bit of a standard is that if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication competent are miniscule…We have patients, and it is very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians…somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR and it’s like 37 cycle threshold…you can almost never culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle. So I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you gotta say, you know, it’s dead nucleotides, period. In other words, it is not a COVID-19 infection.6 A study funded by the French government showed that even at 35-cycles, the false positivity rate is as high as 97%.

 

 

Lots to read in this case document, but well worth it.

 

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5aa5e74f00/M for PI file stamped.pdf

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

14 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Doant' insullt uthur memburs aruond hear

A real mod would throw him in jail for such a vile demeandering personall attack 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

3 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Wasn't someone here recently talking about how falsely inflated covid case counts were, and how the PCR tests themselves are highly inaccurate?  And now it seems that the inserts that come with the tests say NOT to use them for covid testing.  

 

 

 

Lots to read in this case document, but well worth it.

 

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5aa5e74f00/M for PI file stamped.pdf

does this dodgy looking link explain why the states with the lowest vaccine rates are seeing the largest spike in cases?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[InhaleExhale 28]

3 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Wasn't someone here recently talking about how falsely inflated covid case counts were, and how the PCR tests themselves are highly inaccurate?  

Here is an evaluation of August 2020:

https://medicine.yale.edu/labmed/sections/virology/COVID-19 Ct values_YNHH Aug. 2020 _395430_36854_v1.pdf

Another study:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346483715_External_peer_review_of_the_RTPCR_test_to_detect_SARS-CoV-2_reveals_10_major_scientific_flaws_at_the_molecular_and_methodological_level_consequences_for_false_positive_results

 

3 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

And now it seems that the inserts that come with the tests say NOT to use them for covid testing.  

Yes, it is right in the inserts, e.g. https://www.fda.gov/media/136314/download

Pg 3: "Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease".

Pg 6: "This product has not been FDA cleared or approved"

[InhaleExhale 28]

26 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

why the states with the lowest vaccine rates are seeing the largest spike in cases?

Can you cite applicable data that confirms this?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

4 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Lots to read in this case document, but well worth it.

 

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5aa5e74f00/M for PI file stamped.pdf

Do you even law, bro? This is going to get shot down as quickly as the TRO was shot down a couple of months ago. As soon as everyone is served, the defendants will file a motion to dismiss and in all likelihood prevail. I've read the Complaint now as well as this preliminary injunction, and man, under Twombly/Iqbal this case ain't gonna fly. The claims simply are not plausible or sufficiently pleaded to support the relief requested. Consider this gem embedded in the complaint, which aims to link public health measures to communist tactics in North Korea, because something something Commies something something Socialismo:

In particular some of these gems:

 

I do not kink shame those who wish to wear masks when they have sex; there has been an active market in gimp accoutrements for a long time. (Also I like hand sanitizer -- people are gross.) But more seriously, there is a lot of complete and utter hooey in there. Some of the claims are based -- no joke -- on people's fee-fees getting hurt because they felt shamed into getting the vaccine when their states offered custom guns and hamburgers in lotteries. The complaint is a joke, the plaintiffs are jokes, and filing this in federal court in Alabama is frankly an insult to the Alabama District Court. What, because Alabama has a low uptake on vaccination and/or tilts heavily conservative, its judiciary is incapable of discerning garbage? 

 

maven's prediction: preliminary injunction denied, followed by motion to dismiss, which will be granted. But the damage will be done, because people do not understand that just because you file something in court does not make it true.

Edited July 27, 2021 by elmcitymaven

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

49 minutes ago, InhaleExhale said:

Can you cite applicable data that confirms this?

its based on ARR not RRR, very fancy math. Try the CDC.

[InhaleExhale 28]

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

its based on ARR not RRR, very fancy math. Try the CDC.

I don't understand your reply in this context as ARR/RRR has nothing to do with what I asked. Where is your data to support your claim?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

17 minutes ago, InhaleExhale said:

I don't understand your reply in this context as ARR/RRR has nothing to do with what I asked. Where is your data to support your claim?

My use of the term is about as relevant as your use in analysis of Pfizer /Moderna data. 

 

The count of # of cases per 100k is consistent with the percentage of the population fully vaccinated, not 100 percent, but very consistent

Try Louisiana 63 cases/100k with a 37% full vaccinated versus the US as a whole 17 cases per 100k and 49% fully vaccinated.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

[InhaleExhale 28]

Just now, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

My use of the term is about as relevant as your use in analysis of Pfizer /Moderna data. 

The ARR is relevant because it indicates the actual efficacy of the investigational injections, which I would say, currently satisfies the definition of "relevant".

Your link doesn't show any data to back up your claim of "why the states with the lowest vaccine rates are seeing the largest spike in cases".

Do you have data to back it up or not?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

21 minutes ago, InhaleExhale said:

The ARR is relevant because it indicates the actual efficacy of the investigational injections, which I would say, currently satisfies the definition of "relevant".

Your link doesn't show any data to back up your claim of "why the states with the lowest vaccine rates are seeing the largest spike in cases".

Do you have data to back it up or not?

I doubt you or anyone on this thread have the academic or medical research background to determine efficacy, but go ahead with your theories.

 

 

Can you explain why these states have case rates far above the median for the US while having below average ( with the exception of Florida) final vaccination rates?  

 

United States	56,635	17	+144%	34,238	10	+72%	275.0	0.08	49%
Louisiana ›	2,929	63	+177%	1,004	22	+174%	10.4	0.22	37%
Arkansas ›	1,548	51	+92%	864	29	+67%	10.0	0.33	36%
Florida ›	10,452	49	+208%	6,603	31	+128%	39.3	0.18	49%
Missouri ›	2,427	40	+77%	1,749	28	+41%	13.1	0.21	41%
Mississippi ›	1,094	37	+187%	493	17	+75%	5.7	0.19	34%
Alabama ›	1,593	32	+185%	835	17	+145%	5.7	0.12	34%
Oklahoma ›	1,159	29	+138%	602	15	+91%	5.3	0.13	40%
Nevada ›	897	29	+26%	1,034	34	+58%	10.9	0.35	44%
Alaska ›	211	29	+185%	86	12	+142%	0.4	0.06	45%
U.S. Virgin Islands	27	25	+37%	18	17	+222%	0.4	0.40	35%

[laylalex 7,285]

As someone who didn't know about ARR and RRR before, I found this a decent primer on the differences and why both numbers are useful: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/absolute-risk-reduction-formula-covid19-vaccine-versus-relative-risk-reduction-formula/65-e3b7a521-f2f6-46b9-a3cb-450765b49863

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

3 hours ago, InhaleExhale said:

I don't understand your reply in this context as ARR/RRR has nothing to do with what I asked. Where is your data to support your claim?

If you get a straight answer to a direct question you will be the most successful person in CEHST in over two years.