Controlling The Data


Above from left: Damien McCallion, HSE National Lead, Vaccination Programme; Paul Reid, CEO HSE; and Anne O’Connor, COO, HSE in Dr Steevens’ Hospital this afternoon

This afternoon.

Dr Steevens’ Hospital, Dublin.

The weekly HSE operational update on the response to Covid-19.

HSE in bank holiday vaccine push to ‘increase uptake’ (RTÉ)



Sasko Lazarov/RollingNews

Sponsored Link

32 thoughts on “Controlling The Data

  1. Sara

    It’s just ridiculous at this stage. We’re being held to ransome by the anti-vaxxer Karens of this world. Get jabbed, or else stay in your basement and stfu.

    1. Micko

      But it looks like we’re not taking the advice of the WHO in the use of the tests Sara.

      How we’re currently using them may be too sensitive and it may be leading to many false positives.

      Might explain why we’re seeing such a consistant level in cases, even with such a high level of the population vaccinated.

      It would be unscientific and unfair to the people of Ireland NOT to look in to this.

      If it’s incorrect, then fine, but what’s the harm in investigating it?

        1. Cui Bono?

          It’s great you understand these words Cian.

          Now can you comprehend dying “with” covid but not “from” covid?

      1. U N M U T U A L

        …where’s the rest of the post BS?
        I posted the text to save readers having to bother with translation etc.

      2. Cian

        TL,DR: PCR test detects presence of virus but doesn’t tell if you are infectuous.

        That is not news, it is stuff we discussed here Spring 2020.

        1. K. Cavan

          No, Cian, it does not test for the presence of the virus, how often do you need to be told? It detects the presence of RNA, there is no test for the presence of a virus.
          At 45, to quote one scientist, “you can find anything in anyone”, which is exactly what all the testing is about, it’s a propaganda exercise, not a medical one.
          At 45, the vast majority of positives will be false, then they’re referred to as “cases”, which is also a lie, nobody without symptoms can be a case.

    2. E'Matty

      Sara is one of these anti science Vaxx nutters who doesn’t understand that the vaccinated can and do transmit the virus, or that a CT level above 35 renders the test unreliable. Don’t be ignorant of science. Don’t be a Sara.

      1. Sara

        I’m surprized hat Dee Wall’s allowed you to stay up so late. Date nigh with your sister again? Best of luck with it.

        1. K. Cavan

          These Boosters (Boosters!) are 100% guaranteed to work because they’re called Boosters (Boosters!) and if they don’t work, we’ll go on to the Booster Boosters (Booster Boosters!) which are 100% guaranteed to work because they’re called Booster Boosters (Booster Boosters!) and if they don’t work…
          Boosters til You Die (& achieve 100% immunity to all disease)
          Why didn’t they just call the first injections Boosters?

  2. GiggidyGoo

    You won’t get the CT info. Nphet’s last meeting minutes were two months ago, in August. That should tell ya.

  3. Eamon

    The number of cycles of the PCR test is important. The more cycles, the higher the chance of creating a false positive result.

  4. doobee23

    Why are they deliberately using PCR testing to create an illusion?
    The science on this is well known. A CT number higher than 25 cannot give a reliable result. Even Fauci said anything over that is garbage, so this is 100% deliberate. Each number is an increase in magnification of ten times, so you can imagine the difference between even 1 and 5 = 10x10x10x10x10 or 10,000 magnifications. Now imagine 35 – 45 , thats from 100000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Thats a big difference.
    The real kicker was disclosed in a letter published here on broadsheet from our Chief Medical officer to the Minister of Health explaining why visitors to Ireland with a negative PCR test needed to be quarantined. He said ‘even the best PCR testing misses 40%’ .
    Yes that means out of ten people who are infected, four will test negative.
    With a testing Regime using CT numbers of 40-45 there will be a huge number of false positives.
    Using PCR testing can be a ‘Pandemic in a Bottle’ in the wrong hands.

    1. K. Cavan

      You sort of answered your own question there. They’re using grossly innacurate PCR testing to create an illusion. They never even quote the percentage of positive tests, just the raw numbers, which is utterly meaningless, they can double or halve the number of positives by doubling or halving the number of tests. It’s a great scam.
      Everyone’s still using Ferguson’s Imperial College model, which predicted 2 million Americans & 500,000 Brits brown bread by now.
      The pandemic, you must remember, presents a rare window of opportunity to reimagine our world…as a huge prison camp, perhaps?

  5. Kim Cardassian

    Ah shure the ding bats round here are suddenly scientists with expertise in CT’s. Very handy the aul internet though.

    1. E'Matty

      Except we’ve been flagging this since the very beginning of the pandemic. It’s the mindless sheeples like yourself who never had a clue about CTs.

      The World Health Organization released a guidance memo on December 14th 2020, warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives.

      “Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.

      The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain”

      Niamh O’Beirne National Lead for Testing and Tracing in a letter dated 19 October 2020 to Deputy Mattie McGrath responding to his Parliamentary Question: “To ask the Minister for Health the number of cycles used in the PCR testing here for the detection of Covid-19; if he has concerns regarding the over sensitivity of these tests; the steps he is taking to introduce more rapid testing; and if he will make a statement on the matter”.

      “The number of PCR cycles used in Ireland is decided by the manufacturer of the assay, so there is no single answer. The HSE uses a wide range of assays. As a general rule, most assays run for 40-45 cycles.”

      Dr Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR process commenting on cycle thresholds, once said:

      “If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

      The MIQE guidelines for PCR use state:

      “Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,”

      New York Times 17 September 2020 – “In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found”

      “Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus. Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left” according to Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

      “Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive”, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

      1. K. Cavan

        I’m sure Kim knows that the scientists who came up with those results are dingbats, too. Everyone who doesn’t agree with Kim is a dingbat, in fact everyone is a dingbat, apart from Kim, the dingbat-spotter.
        The facts & figures, not to mention the well-founded opinions, that Kim regularly presents us with make it undeniable, unless you’re a dingbat.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link