Science & Technology News

[Ded reckoner]

WHO finally admits the PCR test used to detect COVID-19 infection has a "problem" due to an arbitrary and too high number of cycles used to replicate viral fragments for detection. There is an article discussing this, but the WHO site, with their statement, indicates that page can't be found.

A consequence of this "problem" is reports of the number of infectious cases and the numbers reported of people having died with the coronavirus have been wildly inflated. It is doubtful any correction will ever be made to determine the correct numbers. In any case, the only correct number of deaths is from the virus. To get some sense of the scale of the "problem," the CDC had estimated the number of deaths from the virus is 6% of the (erroneously) reported number of deaths with the virus.

[Ded reckoner]

WHO finally admits the PCR test used to detect COVID-19 infection has a "problem" due to an arbitrary and too high number of cycles used to replicate viral fragments for detection. There is an article discussing this, but the WHO site, with their statement, indicates that page can't be found.

A consequence of this "problem" is reports of the number of infectious cases and the numbers reported of people having died with the coronavirus have been wildly inflated. It is doubtful any correction will ever be made to determine the correct numbers. In any case, the only correct number of deaths is from the virus. To get some sense of the scale of the "problem," the CDC had estimated the number of deaths from the virus is 6% of the (erroneously) reported number of deaths with the virus.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

WHO finally admits the PCR test used to detect COVID-19 infection has a "problem" due to an arbitrary and too high number of cycles used to replicate viral fragments for detection. There is an article discussing this, but the WHO site, with their statement, indicates that page can't be found...

What WHO says:

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 ~ WHO January 20, 2021
Here ➥ https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-...-users-2020-05

Principia Scientific International (PSI) is a right wing propaganda organ, which promotes fringe views, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and outright lies, often around anti-vaccine propaganda, and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.
The PSI website says the organisation is “for everyone who supports the traditions scientific method against the rise of sinister and secretive government funded 'post normal science'.”

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

What WHO says:

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 ~ WHO January 20, 2021
Here ➥ https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-...-users-2020-05

Principia Scientific International (PSI) is a right wing propaganda organ, which promotes fringe views, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and outright lies, often around anti-vaccine propaganda, and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.
The PSI website says the organisation is “for everyone who supports the traditions scientific method against the rise of sinister and secretive government funded 'post normal science'.”

Doesn't mean they are not correct.

[Ded reckoner]

I don't think the intention of this site is to discuss which media sources are reputable. The information from the site provide appears to be accurate. I think before disparagement is made, that much due diligence should have been done.

The WHO statement apparently was pulled from their site. But, it is archived on the Wayback Machine.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

WHO finally admits the PCR test used to detect COVID-19 infection has a "problem" due to an arbitrary and too high number of cycles used to replicate viral fragments for detection. There is an article discussing this, but the WHO site, with their statement, indicates that page can't be found.

A consequence of this "problem" is reports of the number of infectious cases and the numbers reported of people having died with the coronavirus have been wildly inflated. It is doubtful any correction will ever be made to determine the correct numbers. In any case, the only correct number of deaths is from the virus. To get some sense of the scale of the "problem," the CDC had estimated the number of deaths from the virus is 6% of the (erroneously) reported number of deaths with the virus.

So, I don't know what this PSI site is, but if you read the linked WHO notice it categorically DOES NOT say what is claimed here. Read it.

As for the so-called "6% CDC claim," this too is pure fake news that has been debunked many times:

CDC Did Not ‘Admit Only 6%’ of Recorded Deaths from COVID-19

The intention of some participants on this site are to provide credible information and sources. The intention of others appear to want to do the opposite. So yes... some of us will discuss the credibility of the source, especially if significant claims are made.

[s/v Thea]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

I don't think the intention of this site is to discuss which media sources are reputable. The information from the site provide appears to be accurate. I think before disparagement is made, that much due diligence should have been done.

The WHO statement apparently was pulled from their site. But, it is archived on the Wayback Machine.

I disagree, a quick search of the source in question affirms Gord’s comments. I think it’s extremely important to know the accuracy of ‘news’ stories.

[EarlWer]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

The WHO statement apparently was pulled from their site. But, it is archived on the Wayback Machine.

No. It is still available online:
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-...-users-2020-05

It's very clear (my emphasis):
"WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. 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.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information."

[GordMay]

More from John O’Sullivan, and/or Principia Scientific International:

“Shock: Govt Study Proves Flu Vaccination Link To Coronavirus” ~ by John O'Sullivan
➥ https://principia-scientific.org/sho...o-coronavirus/
➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20200323...o-coronavirus/

“The Lies and Manipulation Around Coronavirus Mass Panic” ~ by John O'Sullivan
➥ https://principia-scientific.org/the...us-mass-panic/
➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20200323...us-mass-panic/

“The Vaccine Hoax is Over?” ~ by Andrew Baker
➥ The Vaccine Hoax is Over? | Principia Scientific Intl.
➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20151022...x-is-over.html

“MIT PhD reveals sinister theory about coronavirus”
➥ https://principia-scientific.org/mit...t-coronavirus/

“COVID-19: A Very Different Truth” ~ by Dr. Nyjon Eccles
➥ https://principia-scientific.com/cov...fferent-truth/

“Growing Evidence of COVID Vaccine Harm: Multiple Links” ~ by Ollieh via Cypress Texas Tea Party
➥ https://principia-scientific.com/gro...ultiple-links/

Principia Scientific International claimed that economies were about to be shut down because “the WHO Director caused a global coronavirus panic over a basic math error,” (referring to early World Health Organization fatality rate numbers).
“Revealed: Basic Math Error Likely Cause Of Global Coronavirus Panic!” ~ by Jim Holt
OOPS! ➥ https://principia-scientific.org/rev...navirus-panic/

But here it is ➥ https://madisonarealymesupportgroup....navirus-panic/
➥ https://jdfor2020.com/2020/08/reveal...navirus-panic/

[Ded reckoner]

the linked WHO notice it categorically DOES NOT say what is claimed here. Read it.

. Doubtless, reading technical articles can be challenging. Excerpted from the WHO article: " The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load...WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity." I stand by my interpretation of this and the rest of the WHO statement.

As for the so-called "6% CDC claim," this too is pure fake news that has been debunked many times:

CDC Did Not ‘Admit Only 6%’ of Recorded Deaths from COVID-19

factcheck.org is a political site. Personally, I wouldn't rely on it for fact checking in that field, much less any scientific field. Perhaps you can correct them by giving the CDC link in which they indicate, within the context in which I wrote, "For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned."

[Ded reckoner]

The PSI website says the organisation is “for everyone who supports the traditions scientific method against the rise of sinister and secretive government funded 'post normal science'.”

I am familiar with the traditional scientific method. This methodology traces back to Aristotle's time. It is a procedure validated by scientists over millenia. "Post normal science" is a relatively new $3 phrase for extrapolation. Anyone working with planned experiments and modeling knows extrapolation outside of the spread of data on which the model was based entails risk. Risk increases, sometimes geometrically, with extrapolated distance. Boaters are familiar with weather which is a chaotic system. A forecast for tomorrow could be held in good confidence. However, a forecast three days out should be considered advisedly, particularly if you're going offshore. A forecast a week out should be viewed skeptically. The problem with modeling chaotic systems is intrinsic in that initial conditions can never be known accurately enough. As another example, all climate warming models are incomplete in that a finite set of parameters have data collected or generated which form the basis of the model. About three years ago, not a a single climate warming model considered the effects of ocean currents. But, ocean currents are a major factor in climate change. The inconvenient problem with modeling ocean currents is this is a chaotic system. Very quickly, model projections become wildly erroneous. By now, there are innumerable predictions by climate alarmists which have expired invalid. Yet, extrapolations of climate warming models continue to be made and some held these as settled science. Anyone who thinks science is settled is no scientist. Anyone who thinks climate science is settled probably thinks "post normal science" is reliable.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

. Doubtless, reading technical articles can be challenging. Excerpted from the WHO article: " The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load...WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity." I stand by my interpretation of this and the rest of the WHO statement.

factcheck.org is a political site. Personally, I wouldn't rely on it for fact checking in that field, much less any scientific field. Perhaps you can correct them by giving the CDC link in which they indicate, within the context in which I wrote, "For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned."

As they say, you have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts. As a science journalist I am well versed in reading the research and these kinds of reports. No... the WHO statement does not say what you seem to think it does.

As for factcheck being political, it only seems so because it provides actual, factual information that appears to conflict with your world view.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

I am familiar with the traditional scientific method. This methodology traces back to Aristotle's time. It is a procedure validated by scientists over millenia...

I suggest becoming more familiar with the scientific method. The scientific method (aka Baconian method) goes back to Francis Bacon, while Aristotle couldn't science/calculate his way out of a paper sack vs his earlier peers.

Otherwise, your Covid information is not new on this forum. Please do due diligence and find that what you've presented has already been presented, and parsed to its logical conclusion, in the Covid sub-forum. In those threads people who order and interpret the test you have cited, who otherwise diagnose/treat Covid patients, and who fill out death certificates have posted. In short, you're adding no new perspective nor actionable ideas.

[newhaul]

Well the covid pandemic is now over the new president of the US has changed the wording of died from to died with covid. Therefore recognizing the extremely low world death rate .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Doesn't mean they are not correct.

Indeed, but this one is not correct.

PCR tests for COVID have approximately 87%-90% sensitivity and nearly 97%-100% specificity. See this actual scientific study: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/articl...faa399/5899824 Sensitivity is much lower in the first days of infection, so there are significant false negatives, but vanishingly small false positives.

And the WHO says nothing remotely like what these sources are saying WHO said.

So this does seem like totally fake news.