4 ms·

You're literally repeating a discredited right wing conspiracy theory - WHO adjusts their guidance constantly and according to the WHO and virologists everywher

You're literally repeating a discredited right wing conspiracy theory - WHO adjusts their guidance constantly and according to the WHO and virologists everywhere, these changes didn't meaningfully impact the number of positives since almost all positive results happen at far lower cycle counts. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-who-instructions-pcr-guidan/fact-check-who-released-guidance-on-proper-use-of-tests-it-did-not-admit-pcr-tests-showed-inflated-infection-numbers-idUSKBN2A429W https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-who-instruction...

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
>PCR tests were being misused This is right-wing conspiracy theory. >the tests were not being used in compliance with instructions This is science.
Izkata 6y ago
Aside from sibling comment's point, here's what they link to: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05 https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-not... The part that primarily caught my eye, which isn't what Reuters is attempting to debunk: > Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. "clinical presentation" - in other words, the symptoms. This advice runs contrary to the entire past year, where a single positive test in an asymptomatic person has counted as a case. This alone is enough to inflate the numbers, without even taking PCR cycles into account. And Reuters ends up just barely short of confirming the part about PCR cycles anyway: > ”The WHO are saying that if the manufacturer has defined a value but you could if you chose to adjust that setting, please don’t - stick to what the manufacturer has stated because they have done the earlier work to determine the best value for that threshold,” Mackay said. Labs using too high a threshold has been a concern for about half a year: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testin... (And note the numbers in this article, almost all in the range of 33-40 cycles - I recall on rare occasion seeing higher reported elsewhere, around 45 and 50 cycles)

readflaggedcomm 6y ago

>PCR tests were being misused This is right-wing conspiracy theory. >the tests were not being used in compliance with instructions This is science.

Izkata 6y ago

Aside from sibling comment's point, here's what they link to: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05 https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-not... The part that primarily caught my eye, which isn't what Reuters is attempting to debunk: > Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. "clinical presentation" - in other words, the symptoms. This advice runs contrary to the entire past year, where a single positive test in an asymptomatic person has counted as a case. This alone is enough to inflate the numbers, without even taking PCR cycles into account. And Reuters ends up just barely short of confirming the part about PCR cycles anyway: > ”The WHO are saying that if the manufacturer has defined a value but you could if you chose to adjust that setting, please don’t - stick to what the manufacturer has stated because they have done the earlier work to determine the best value for that threshold,” Mackay said. Labs using too high a threshold has been a concern for about half a year: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testin... (And note the numbers in this article, almost all in the range of 33-40 cycles - I recall on rare occasion seeing higher reported elsewhere, around 45 and 50 cycles)