4 ms·

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.25.20219048v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.25.20219048v... Page 25. Actual infectious disea

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.25.20219048v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.25.20219048v... Page 25. Actual infectious disease scientists. There are two conclusions you can draw from these graphs: 1) The vast majority of 'positive' PCR tests do not need > 30 cycles to demonstrate presence of virus. 2) Actual, employed, doing-the-work scientists do indeed use > 30 cycles, and publish the work, to demonstrate facts with actual scientific merit. Of course, your buddies who tell you that "it's bonkers" are a reliable source, right?

beagle3 6y ago
My buddies do PCRs every day, some of them for decades. Non of them work on human tissues, but they all have done PhDs and postdocs in prestigious labs, and some of them are already tenured and considered rising stars. So, yes, they are a reliable source. Thank you for the medrxiv pointer, I will read it later today when I have the time. The conclusions mins you, which one should never trust without actually reading the paper (and I admit I have not, especially not pg 25 you pointed to) are: “ Conclusions Community SARS-CoV-2 infections show marked variation in viral load. Ct values could be a useful epidemiological early-warning indicator.” At face value, this reads “Ct value should be published”. But I will only adopt this interpretation (or disown it) after reading the entire paper.
beagle3 6y ago
Yes, if you only look at pg 25, you’d get these results. But if you actually read the paper (which actually supports the conclusions they reaxh). Median Ct>34.9 group seems to be essentially false positives, and even Ct>33 is not strong, whereas median Ct=~24 is a very strong positive. Turns out, my buddies seem to be right and you sit, by your own reference, are wrong in claiming that there’s no reason to publish Ct. You think you are part of the scientific solution, but you have just proved yourself to be part of the cargo cult religion.

beagle3 6y ago

My buddies do PCRs every day, some of them for decades. Non of them work on human tissues, but they all have done PhDs and postdocs in prestigious labs, and some of them are already tenured and considered rising stars. So, yes, they are a reliable source. Thank you for the medrxiv pointer, I will read it later today when I have the time. The conclusions mins you, which one should never trust without actually reading the paper (and I admit I have not, especially not pg 25 you pointed to) are: “ Conclusions Community SARS-CoV-2 infections show marked variation in viral load. Ct values could be a useful epidemiological early-warning indicator.” At face value, this reads “Ct value should be published”. But I will only adopt this interpretation (or disown it) after reading the entire paper.

beagle3 6y ago

Yes, if you only look at pg 25, you’d get these results. But if you actually read the paper (which actually supports the conclusions they reaxh). Median Ct>34.9 group seems to be essentially false positives, and even Ct>33 is not strong, whereas median Ct=~24 is a very strong positive. Turns out, my buddies seem to be right and you sit, by your own reference, are wrong in claiming that there’s no reason to publish Ct. You think you are part of the scientific solution, but you have just proved yourself to be part of the cargo cult religion.