It has been proven that the current COVID RT-PCR tests, set to a cycle threshold (Ct) of 40 by the FDA and CDC, generate false positive results due to the Ct value being set too high. To further complicate matters, the CDC has elected to set the Ct value to 28 when testing samples from vaccinated Americans
That's not statistical manipulation. That's fraud. Having said that, this appears to be a misreading. Allow me to explain:
For breakthrough cases (vaccinated but still got covid) the CDC wants sequence data on the strain (so they can track strains and detect novel ones). The CDC guidelines state they will accept locally sequenced data, but in cases where sample is to be sent to the CDC for them to sequence they won't accept samples that aren't positive at or below 28 cycles. Basically, don't send us dilute shit because we aren't going to just do a simple yes/no thing with it, we are sequencing - we need significant amounts of material to do that effectively so if it takes more than 28 cycles don't waste our time.
The current CDC protocol they cite does repeat the 40 cycle standard, which does have a huge issue with false positives (my cursory reading shows that the mean ct necessary for detection is 32-35 depending on reagents with SDs of ~0.8) so even trusting the reporting it's crazy high; intentionally designed to minimize false negatives (5 SD beyond mean) while maximizing false positives.
In the reporting form, it makes no specifics as to a threshold to be considered positive, but does have a section to note the cycles at which it is positive, which could be less than 40, but does not mean they are excluding any below 40. The absence of guidelines on this suggest the standard protocol is otherwise to be the standard.
I found no evidence that the testing or reporting is different for vaccinated vs non vaccinated, and all available evidence suggest the reverse, that the methodology is the same.
It has been proven that the current COVID RT-PCR tests, set to a cycle threshold (Ct) of 40 by the FDA and CDC, generate false positive results due to the Ct value being set too high. To further complicate matters, the CDC has elected to set the Ct value to 28 when testing samples from vaccinated Americans
That's not statistical manipulation. That's fraud. Having said that, this appears to be a misreading. Allow me to explain:
For breakthrough cases (vaccinated but still got covid) the CDC wants sequence data on the strain (so they can track strains and detect novel ones). The CDC guidelines state they will accept locally sequenced data, but in cases where sample is to be sent to the CDC for them to sequence they won't accept samples that aren't positive at or below 28 cycles. Basically, don't send us dilute shit because we aren't going to just do a simple yes/no thing with it, we are sequencing - we need significant amounts of material to do that effectively so if it takes more than 28 cycles don't waste our time.
The current CDC protocol they cite does repeat the 40 cycle standard, which does have a huge issue with false positives (my cursory reading shows that the mean ct necessary for detection is 32-35 with SDs of ~0.8) so even trusting the reporting it's crazy high; intentionally designed to minimize false negatives (5 SD beyond mean) while maximizing false positives.
In the reporting form, it makes no specifics as to a threshold to be considered positive, but does have a section to note the cycles at which it is positive, which could be less than 40, but does not mean they are excluding any below 40. The absence of guidelines on this suggest the standard protocol is otherwise to be the standard.
I found no evidence that the testing or reporting is different for vaccinated vs non vaccinated, and all available evidence suggest the reverse, that the methodology is the same.
It has been proven that the current COVID RT-PCR tests, set to a cycle threshold (Ct) of 40 by the FDA and CDC, generate false positive results due to the Ct value being set too high. To further complicate matters, the CDC has elected to set the Ct value to 28 when testing samples from vaccinated Americans
That's not statistical manipulation. That's fraud. Having said that, this appears to be a misreading. Allow me to explain:
For breakthrough cases (vaccinated but still got covid) the CDC wants sequence data on the strain (so they can track strains and detect novel ones). The CDC guidelines state they will accept locally sequenced data, but in cases where sample is to be sent to the CDC for them to sequence they won't accept samples that aren't positive at or below 28 cycles. Basically, don't send us dilute shit because we aren't going to do a yes/no thing with it, we are sequencing - we need significant amounts of material to do that effectively.
The current CDC protocol they cite does repeat the 40 cycle standard, which does have a huge issue with false positives (my cursory reading shows that the mean ct necessary for detection is 32-35 with SDs of ~0.8) so even trusting the reporting it's crazy high; intentionally designed to minimize false negatives (5 SD beyond mean) while maximizing false positives.
I found no evidence that the testing or reporting is different for vaccinated vs non vaccinated, and all available evidence suggest the reverse, that the methodology is the same.