@metal-brain saidSomehow I knew you would respond this way if I posted that article. You only read the headline, again? The article specifies that health care professionals are needed for proper administration.
That article is about antigen tests, NOT PCR tests!
The only part of your article that addresses PCRs says "when they are administered properly". Now you have to prove they are administered properly and we are back to that 2 out of 3 instead of 3 out of 3 thing we started with.
2 out of 3 is not required for distinguishing COVID-19 from common cold. Your article did not say it was.
2 edits
@wildgrass saidFrom the link below:
Somehow I knew you would respond this way if I posted that article. You only read the headline, again? The article specifies that health care professionals are needed for proper administration.
2 out of 3 is not required for distinguishing COVID-19 from common cold. Your article did not say it was.
According to scientific opinion:
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al, Critique of Drosten Study)"
https://www.globalresearch.ca/nucleic-acid-testing-technologies-use-polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr-detection-sars-cov-2/5739959
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
"The article specifies that health care professionals are needed for proper administration."
And just what specifically is " proper administration"?
@metal-brain saidProper administration depends on the test.
From the link below:
According to scientific opinion:
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhot ...[text shortened]... ls are needed for proper administration."
And just what specifically is " proper administration"?
I'm still not seeing your point. You are providing basic and general technical information on PCR tests. How about practical information? The data on the accuracy of this specific test seems quite good, as opposed to the rapid test, especially when you seem to have a potential gripe with false positives. The best number I could find for the rate of false positives was 0.8-4.0%... I consider this an acceptable degree of error.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext
@wildgrass saidI'll post this excerpt again:
Proper administration depends on the test.
I'm still not seeing your point. You are providing basic and general technical information on PCR tests. How about practical information? The data on the accuracy of this specific test seems quite good, as opposed to the rapid test, especially when you seem to have a potential gripe with false positives. The best number I could ...[text shortened]... ree of error.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al, Critique of Drosten Study)"
https://www.globalresearch.ca/nucleic-acid-testing-technologies-use-polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr-detection-sars-cov-2/5739959
Are you disputing the above statement?
@metal-brain saidI have no clue what data they are basing that statement on. Do you? It sounds like overgeneralized handwaving. But, clearly, from a practical standpoint in this conversation the evidence with COVID-19 testing demonstrates that testing is reasonably accurate.
I'll post this excerpt again:
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Cr ...[text shortened]... polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr-detection-sars-cov-2/5739959
Are you disputing the above statement?
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThen you do dispute it, right?
I have no clue what data they are basing that statement on. Do you? It sounds like overgeneralized handwaving. But, clearly, from a practical standpoint in this conversation the evidence with COVID-19 testing demonstrates that testing is reasonably accurate.
Yes or no?
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
@metal-brain saidAs a general statement, it may be relevant in some contexts. But just googling PCR protocols I found lots of labs use anywhere between 30-40 cycles for testing without problems. Based on real data showing false positive rates ranging from 0.8-4%, that statement does not apply to COVID-19 testing.
Then you do dispute it, right?
Yes or no?
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext
@wildgrass saidYour source is the one that published fraudulent data on HCQ?
As a general statement, it may be relevant in some contexts. But just googling PCR protocols I found lots of labs use anywhere between 30-40 cycles for testing without problems. Based on real data showing false positive rates ranging from 0.8-4%, that statement does not apply to COVID-19 testing.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext
How about you post another source?
@metal-brain saidI thought we were discussing testing, in which case I value evidence over baseless statements. The Lancet is one of the top 3 medical journals in the world. If it was fraudulent, certainly it would be retracted.
Your source is the one that published fraudulent data on HCQ?
How about you post another source?
@wildgrass saidYou said that statement does not apply to COVID-19 testing.
I thought we were discussing testing, in which case I value evidence over baseless statements. The Lancet is one of the top 3 medical journals in the world. If it was fraudulent, certainly it would be retracted.
Irrelevant.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidYou have not addressed my questions about the source material you provided on testing. It does not appear to address the actual, practical use of COVID-19 testing, only speaking in the abstract about PCR in general. But PCR technology has been around for almost 40 years and used in a large number of diagnostic tests for a long time. I don't understand. Why don't the use the actual data on false positives, as other studies have done?
You said that statement does not apply to COVID-19 testing.
Irrelevant.
From the Lancet article: "... estimates [of false positives] show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%."
From the cited materials:
Our meta-analysis of EQAs of similar diagnostic tests found FPRs with an interquartile range of 0.8-4.0%. These false positives were probably not generated by cross-reactivity, since test protocols are typically tested against the likeliest reactants including similar viruses, and because many tests target multiple genomic regions. Nor were they likely to be due to reagent contamination during manufacture, which in most cases would be detected by negative controls. Rather, the likeliest source of these false positives is sample contamination or human error. Samples can be contaminated by a positive sample analyzed at the same time (cross-contamination), or more likely by target genes amplified from prior positive samples or positive controls (carryover contamination). False positives can also be produced by sample mix-ups7 or data entry errors.
@wildgrass saidYou said that does not apply to COVID-19 testing. Why do you now insist it is relevant?
You have not addressed my questions about the source material you provided on testing. It does not appear to address the actual, practical use of COVID-19 testing, only speaking in the abstract about PCR in general. But PCR technology has been around for almost 40 years and used in a large number of diagnostic tests for a long time. I don't understand. Why don't the use the ...[text shortened]... ontamination). False positives can also be produced by sample mix-ups7 or data entry errors.[/quote]