It's unfortunate that researchers and public health policy-makers sometimes fail to understand or describe transparently the limitations in the usability of analytical data for specific decision-making. This can be exacerbated by "anchoring bias" where once a test has been approved it is assumed to be the Standard and can be difficult to acknowledge its limitations or prevent its use beyond its initial intent. Your discussion highlights significant limitations in the applicability of PCR to conclude that a person IS infectious or to draw more general conclusions regarding a population. I hope in a future article you discuss examples of some limited circumstances where a significantly "biased" test may be a valuable tool. For example: you are contacted by the head of a senior care facility; a staff person has tested positive by PCR. She asks you: "should I let this staff person be around elderly persons with multiple comorbidities, or shall I assign them to other duties for a few weeks until their PCR is negative?" Let's assume the PCR has a high false positive rate (perhaps as high as 80%) but a low false negative rate (e.g., <5%), then it would be very poor at supporting a statement, "I'm confident this person is infectious." But, it might be valuable for supporting or refuting a statement, "I'm confident enough that this person is NOT infectious that I will have them work with people who are likely to die if exposed."
Good added perspecitve Bruce......anchoring bias, like confirmational bias is problematic. You make an excellent point on how a tool like PCR testing could have been used intelligently....unfortunately, this was not the case and the PCR was weaponized to push fear and an agenda on both ends of the debate......it is unfortunate and I am glad someone like Joomi has taken the time an effort for such a thoughtful piece.
Another thorough clear post. 👍🏽💕 The devil is in the details, and the PCR - infectiousnrss details are quite sloppy. It was frustrating to have conversations with people regarding the science of the pandemic and vaccines.
They had quick and simple media talking points, and I had all the uncertainty of what different studies were showing and their level of validity.
Thanks for the details about the PCR test, I couldn't remember exactly what it's testing or how it can be innaccurate for measuring infection.
Can you please explain and clarify this statement a bit more "Even with the fact that Vero cells are quite susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, often PCR positive samples don’t yield culturable virus,"? I don't understand what "PCR positive samples don't yield culturable virus" means? What made the PCR "positive" then?
It is fairly well known and easily demonstrable that PCR >24 is absolutely fraud. The literal chart of probability of positivity ends at 38. 40 cycles is BEYOND the range! The true problem with the PCR in the entire Plandemonium is that they NEVER isolated the virus (FACT) so there has never been an honest verifiable set of assays to flouresce. The media is the virus and was paid and weaponized to fraudulently drive the hype.
What do you mean by "isolated the virus"? According to https://www.virology.ws/2021/02/25/understanding-virus-isolates-variants-strains-and-more/ "Isolates are given names so that their origin is known. For example, one of the early isolates of SARS-CoV-2 is called BetaCoV/Wuhan/WIV04/2019. This isolate name consists of the genus, Betacoronavirus, followed by the city of origin, the isolate number, and the year"
It's unfortunate that researchers and public health policy-makers sometimes fail to understand or describe transparently the limitations in the usability of analytical data for specific decision-making. This can be exacerbated by "anchoring bias" where once a test has been approved it is assumed to be the Standard and can be difficult to acknowledge its limitations or prevent its use beyond its initial intent. Your discussion highlights significant limitations in the applicability of PCR to conclude that a person IS infectious or to draw more general conclusions regarding a population. I hope in a future article you discuss examples of some limited circumstances where a significantly "biased" test may be a valuable tool. For example: you are contacted by the head of a senior care facility; a staff person has tested positive by PCR. She asks you: "should I let this staff person be around elderly persons with multiple comorbidities, or shall I assign them to other duties for a few weeks until their PCR is negative?" Let's assume the PCR has a high false positive rate (perhaps as high as 80%) but a low false negative rate (e.g., <5%), then it would be very poor at supporting a statement, "I'm confident this person is infectious." But, it might be valuable for supporting or refuting a statement, "I'm confident enough that this person is NOT infectious that I will have them work with people who are likely to die if exposed."
Good added perspecitve Bruce......anchoring bias, like confirmational bias is problematic. You make an excellent point on how a tool like PCR testing could have been used intelligently....unfortunately, this was not the case and the PCR was weaponized to push fear and an agenda on both ends of the debate......it is unfortunate and I am glad someone like Joomi has taken the time an effort for such a thoughtful piece.
Joomi for President!
Another thorough clear post. 👍🏽💕 The devil is in the details, and the PCR - infectiousnrss details are quite sloppy. It was frustrating to have conversations with people regarding the science of the pandemic and vaccines.
They had quick and simple media talking points, and I had all the uncertainty of what different studies were showing and their level of validity.
Thanks for the details about the PCR test, I couldn't remember exactly what it's testing or how it can be innaccurate for measuring infection.
Can you please explain and clarify this statement a bit more "Even with the fact that Vero cells are quite susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, often PCR positive samples don’t yield culturable virus,"? I don't understand what "PCR positive samples don't yield culturable virus" means? What made the PCR "positive" then?
It is fairly well known and easily demonstrable that PCR >24 is absolutely fraud. The literal chart of probability of positivity ends at 38. 40 cycles is BEYOND the range! The true problem with the PCR in the entire Plandemonium is that they NEVER isolated the virus (FACT) so there has never been an honest verifiable set of assays to flouresce. The media is the virus and was paid and weaponized to fraudulently drive the hype.
What do you mean by "isolated the virus"? According to https://www.virology.ws/2021/02/25/understanding-virus-isolates-variants-strains-and-more/ "Isolates are given names so that their origin is known. For example, one of the early isolates of SARS-CoV-2 is called BetaCoV/Wuhan/WIV04/2019. This isolate name consists of the genus, Betacoronavirus, followed by the city of origin, the isolate number, and the year"