4 ms·
The PCR argument is a great example of where government transparency is lacking where it could easily be used to counter critics. The “PCR is fake” people shou
by bananapear 6y ago
The PCR argument is a great example of where government transparency is lacking where it could easily be used to counter critics.
The “PCR is fake” people should clearly be ignored, but one of the more persuasive arguments from the “most tests are false positives” narrative seems to be that the amplification cycle thresholds are being set far too high and tests are therefore finding fragments of RNA from previous infection weeks or months ago.
Now I don’t know how much scientific merit that argument has, but is it not irresponsible of the government to withhold details of the testing parameters they are using, given the impact the results are having?
- _ph_ 6y agoFrom my understanding, the "amplification cycly threshold" is a number which depends on the specific PCR test. So every lab has somewhat different numbers applying to their testing method. Consequently, there is no single number for this the government could publish. And without an analysis of that specific lab, the number isn't meaningful at all. Publishing it would actually be very harmful as it is so meaningless.
- herewegoagain2 6y agoSo individual labs can set their own standards for detecting an infection? Isn't that rather support for the skeptic's viewpoint? So there actually is no standard, just labs claiming things?
- _ph_ 6y agoIt is not setting individual standards, but about calibration of the process. Each piece of measurement equipment needs to be calibrated.