CDC lowers PCR CT count and diagnostic guidelines ONLY for the vaccinated

[Perry Staltic]

What I've gathered:. It's impossible to refute the claim in the U.S. that unvaccinated die more, because the entire testing construct is distorted. Which I already knew it's all distorted but hoped there was some confounding data specific to vaccination deaths in the U.S. it seems to only be something monitored overseas.

Technically that's correct. But viruses/vaccines don't do one thing in one country and then the opposite thing in another country. There are always data; there is never a vacuum even though what data exists may not be the type or quality that you want. We have to work with what we have. When you are given both good data (overseas) and bad data (US), you always have to go with the good data and reject the bad when it contradicts the good. So in the case of the US for the time being, the confounding data are read between the lines. It's all we have at the moment, but really it's all we need. The sword cuts both ways: just as it's impossible to refute a claim based on bad data, it's also impossible to prove a claim based on bad data. Those who provide bad data have to prove their claims because their bad data don't. It's not our responsibility to prove they're wrong; that can reasonably be assumed from the good data.

 

[haidut]

Those who provide bad data have to prove their claims; it's not our responsibility to prove they're wrong

It is actually a constantly recurring theme in many political/health/social issues. When the power that be are caught lying, they say we have to prove with absolute certainty it is a lie despite us showing we have evidence they are lying while them having none that their version is true. In other words, the powers that be define what is "true" and anybody claiming the opposite has to spend an exorbitant amount of time/money/effort to even articulate a good case. @Drareg has been pointing it out for years. It is a type of a denial of service attack (DoS) often done on IT systems, but unlike the IT type we have the ability and right to keep demanding that the side creating arbitrary definitions defend/substantiate those, instead of the burden being on us. I really wish more people realized that "consensus" means nothing when it comes to understanding reality, be that in science, politics, or even personal interactions.

 

[Alex Jaramillo]

It is actually a constantly recurring theme in many political/health/social issues. When the power that be are caught lying, they say we have to prove with absolute certainty it is a lie despite us showing we have evidence they are lying while them having none that their version is true. In other words, the powers that be define what is "true" and anybody claiming the opposite has to spend an exorbitant amount of time/money/effort to even articulate a good case. @Drareg has been pointing it out for years. It is a type of a denial of service attack (DoS) often done on IT systems, but unlike the IT type we have the ability and right to keep demanding that the side creating arbitrary definitions defend/substantiate those, instead of the burden being on us. I really wish more people realized that "consensus" means nothing when it comes to understanding reality, be that in science, politics, or even personal interactions.

Right on man, they say that 17 year basketball players randomly get blood clots after getting jabbed with *pfizer* after b-ball practice,not sore calves, shins and feet but brain blood clots! They say that a perfectly healthy 56 year old doctor died here in florida within two weeks of getting jabbed with pfizer. They said my grandpa died at that same “medical” center with the same such vax as this doctor. It’s all indirect and unrelated and pre existing and you know you drank 2 cups of coffee instead of one and now you have permenant blindness, convulsions, diarehea and incontinence and none of that is from the vax don’t forget but you know them jokers love telling fables!

 

[RealNeat]

Have you read through the entire thread? This was actually brought up very early on and here is my response to it.

CDC lowers PCR CT count and diagnostic guidelines ONLY for the vaccinated

They enforced the mask mandates here, getting up to around 1000 people a week fined for not wearing a mask outside. When they put it, cases kept on rising, and have seemed to only decline when they put in a lockdown. Of course, it will be much more difficult for police to crack down on who has...

raypeatforum.com

This is not the only piece of evidence. Earlier in the year, WHO also recommended lowering the PCR cycle threshold, though did not say specifically whether different threshold should be used for vaxxed and unvaxxed.

"Pandemic" collapsing due to WHO mandating retesting and fewer PCR cycles

Just as we predicted here, as far back as March 2020. Namely, the rapidly rising COVID-19 cases used to justify the draconian lockdowns and other social restriction were probably due not to some sort of highly infectious and lethal virus...but simply because the PCR test used to diagnose the...

raypeatforum.com

Now, be that as it may, let's give the benefit of the doubt that maybe CDC did not try to mislead. Here is the smoking gun in regards to the whole pandemic, and that admission is coming straight from the CDC.

CDC did not change its criteria for breakthrough cases

Widely shared social media posts wrongly claim that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed its testing p

www.politifact.com

"...CDC spokeswoman Jade Fulce said in a statement that, when it comes to determining which positive samples are assessed for presence of a variant strain, any Ct value higher than 28 is pretty much moot since it indicates the viral load is too small."

So....why would the original test, ran at cycle threshold in the 40-45 range for entire 2020 (until WHO said in January 2021 to lowered it) be any different!? If that test was run for a whole year (2020) at 40-45 cycle threshold, how do we know that it even detected SARS-CoV-2 (a strain of coronavirus) and not something else entirely?? Like, maybe...the flu for example! Especially considering that the cases of the latter dropped down (conveniently) to zero in almost every country around the world experiencing a COVID-19 "pandemic". No, scratch that - how do we know that test cranked up to 40-45 threshold detected a legitimate viral infection at all?? Have you seen the reports coming out of Africa and Europe showing that a test with 40-45 cycle threshold would detect an "infection" in things like your shoes, a plant, a goat, etc? As far as I know most labs around the country (and the rest of the world) have not yet dropped the cycle threshold down to below 30, so all these "new" cases of "Delta" or "Mu" are still detected with that "moot" method (in CDC's own words). Am I missing something here?
@Drareg @tankasnowgod

I think we are kind of missing the point. They aren't necessarily using the PCR to make it seem like vaccinated people are less "infected" but rather that the reason for their infection (aka the reason their vaccines aren't working) is because of a new "variant."

To establish the paper trail for these variants they need to analyze so called "actually" PCR positive people which I think everyone understands is around the 28 mark instead of the high 40s... (I don't believe that garbage either but let's move on) Then to add to the bs they are only counting Vax people as breakthrough if they are hospitalized or die. There is some mention of being non discriminatory with cycle thresholds for "further analysis" but it's conjecture and not nearly as much focus us put on it as vaxxed guidelines. Which obviously gives them an advantage especially if semantics can be played, like not being "fully vaxxed" until weeks after your 2nd vaccine...

 

[AlaskaJono]

The UK Column site has some good info and vids. Through the Scottish health service, the Data shows that those that die of Covid have a median age of 82.5 years old, and the others' median age of life/death at 81. So this Data prove one lives longer on covid. Crazy stats... .

 

[Peatogenic]

It is actually a constantly recurring theme in many political/health/social issues. When the power that be are caught lying, they say we have to prove with absolute certainty it is a lie despite us showing we have evidence they are lying while them having none that their version is true. In other words, the powers that be define what is "true" and anybody claiming the opposite has to spend an exorbitant amount of time/money/effort to even articulate a good case. @Drareg has been pointing it out for years. It is a type of a denial of service attack (DoS) often done on IT systems, but unlike the IT type we have the ability and right to keep demanding that the side creating arbitrary definitions defend/substantiate those, instead of the burden being on us. I really wish more people realized that "consensus" means nothing when it comes to understanding reality, be that in science, politics, or even personal interactions.

I agree. But I take this both ways. The contrarian consensus I question as well. Consensus exists in many minority circles. And, truthfully, we *have* proven many consensus claims in society surrounding Covid to be false.

 

[Peatogenic]

Technically that's correct. But viruses/vaccines don't do one thing in one country and then the opposite thing in another country. There are always data; there is never a vacuum even though what data exists may not be the type or quality that you want. We have to work with what we have. When you are given both good data (overseas) and bad data (US), you always have to go with the good data and reject the bad when it contradicts the good. So in the case of the US for the time being, the confounding data are read between the lines. It's all we have at the moment, but really it's all we need. The sword cuts both ways: just as it's impossible to refute a claim based on bad data, it's also impossible to prove a claim based on bad data. Those who provide bad data have to prove their claims because their bad data don't. It's not our responsibility to prove they're wrong; that can reasonably be assumed from the good data.

I agree, mostly. But we have had data that's concrete and clear regarding many Covid claims and have been able to refute it. It's not been our responsibility, nevertheless we've taken it on. I'm happy to just come to clarity that there isn't clear data at the moment in the example of mortality specifics with v/unv regarding hospitalized Covid. The closest data we have is overseas.

I feel the impulse to avoid simplification. Avoiding inserting conclusiveness or confidence when something looks more like a rhizome than a tree. The approach can't be to fill in or ignore the gaps, because the gaps hold the truth as well.

 

[Peatogenic]

I am all about fruit safety. Thanks for posting this mate.

Peatogenic I am sorry to hear that you are experience cult stuff here. Most Definitely we have very strong people here who have broken some chains to the societal norms and conditioning in oreder to be healthy and feel mo' betta. Or those want to get on that healing train and have come here. Right On! And furthermore as Ray Peat enthusiasts most of us also have our own experience and are not blind followers of fashion. Some may do Iodine or blend some other ideas of RP into their existing food/health regime. If it works for them at this time great, we can all assist each other. But the main concepts we appreciate and apply as is our possibilty.

As far as this thread goes it is unclear what power the CDC has in Mandating the labs precise function in regards to this PCR test. But as Haidut has just posted It is in fact used in such a way to provide DATA for the narrative. Period. It does not represent anything useful except for the previous sentence.

Here in Australia the cycle count is 40-45 according to Julian Druce, who is the head of the virus identification laboratory at the Doherty Institute. In New Zealand my wife read that they are running 40 cycles. So what is the use of that when even Fauci has said over 34/35 cycles is useless. And some one (Jane something) from CDC is quoted as saying 28 Cycles is best for this purpose. I did just read on the CDC website this information that Haidut posted.

Then Remember that According to the inventor of the PCR Kerry Mullis there is no Validity in this test for presence of any infection. It amplifies partial i.e. - short genetic sequences. So with the idea of variants, PCR is not a method for showing anything related to Coroni's cousin. NOt possible. I did hear an interview a few days ago and because of the time and expense involved in testing a sample for the "variant", it is almost never done. This was from the USA recently.

In a 1970s Clint Eastwood voice I must ask you , "The validity of the existence of Coroni is in Question, and you want to know his Cousin?!"

This below from Kit Knightly from Off-Guardian:

The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people.

Consider…


The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.

To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019, there would never have been a pandemic at all.

If you apply them only to the vaccinated, but keep the old rules for the unvaccinated, the only possible result can be that the official records show “Covid” is much more prevalent among the latter than the former.

This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimise the other.

What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?

I agree it's deceptive. I was just trying to work through the claim that the CDC had openly instructed to test the vaccinated differently.

 

[Perry Staltic]

I'm happy to just come to clarity that there isn't clear data at the moment in the example of mortality specifics with v/unv regarding hospitalized Covid. The closest data we have is overseas.

We do have clear data. Just because it's overseas doesn't make it invalid. Embrace the good (data), reject the bad (framing of data). Your over cautious approach allows them to continue their charade. It's not that complicated.

 

[Peatogenic]

We do have clear data. Just because it's overseas doesn't make it invalid. Embrace the good (data), reject the bad (framing of data). Your over cautious approach allows them to continue their charade. It's not that complicated.

Did you notice that? You implied I was saying the overseas data is invalid or not applicable to the U.S. which I don't believe and have never said. not once.

I believe it is complicated. And that expressing truth is not a little thing. the hundreds upon hundreds of discussions here clearly show that we are up against something complicated. We have different philosophies then. Which I believe is also a good thing.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Did you notice that? You implied I was saying the overseas data is invalid or not applicable to the U.S. which I don't believe and have never said. not once.

I believe it is complicated. And that expressing truth is not a little thing. the hundreds upon hundreds of discussions here clearly show that we are up against something complicated. We have different philosophies then. Which I believe is also a good thing.

By saying complicated, I meant it's not that complicated to figure out. Inconvenient conclusion from country A (more vaxxed getting sick/dying) is diametrically opposed to conclusion from country B that admits their presentation of data is manipulated. If you encountered this scenario on this forum about a supplement, what would you do?

 

[Peatogenic]

By saying complicated, I meant it's not that complicated to figure out. Inconvenient conclusion from country A (more vaxxed getting sick/dying) is diametrically opposed to conclusion from country B that admits their presentation of data is manipulated. If you encountered this scenario on this forum about a supplement, what would you do?

I would be suspicious of the supplement.

I was thinking of a better way to describe what you seem to be missing. I believe in collecting all the data....view them as photographs strewn on a table. The photographs are a bunch of snapshots. No single photo tells the entire story, it's in the collection of photos that the story materializes. I try not to put emphasis on one photo, because this would be me inserting my own narrative.

None of that should imply that I think the photo of the UK stats is meaningless.

 

[Perry Staltic]

I would be suspicious of the supplement.

I was thinking of a better way to describe what you seem to be missing. I believe in collecting all the data....view them as photographs strewn on a table. The photographs are a bunch of snapshots. No single photo tells the entire story, it's in the collection of photos that the story materializes. I try not to put emphasis on one photo, because this would be me inserting my own narrative.

None of that should imply that I think the photo of the UK stats is meaningless.

Let me tell you what skilled problem solvers do when they don't have two comparative photographs: they learn to discern other signals and weigh them according to their merit. Everything together gives you what that 2nd photograph would tell you. Scientists, as well as other problem solvers, do it all of the time. If you insist on waiting for the other photograph that will never come, you will never get anywhere.

 

[Peatogenic]

Let me tell you what skilled problem solvers do when they don't have two comparative photographs: they learn to discern other signals and weigh them according to their merit. Everything together gives you what that 2nd photograph would tell you. Scientists, as well as other problem solvers, do it all of the time. If you insist on waiting for the other photograph that will never come, you will never get anywhere.

Yes, the photos (which encompasses "other signals") together are more indicative of truth than a single photo. The collage of photos creates a new photo, which you then see is just a single photo on a new table surrounded by other new photos.

As a small detail, I see the photo of VAERS reports as "comparative". There's a possible connection there which could tie into the UK hospitalized vaccine death data.

Even before you see the full picture, your body and mind obviously develops intuitions, whether they're true or not. You make decisions along the way of this constant synthesis, whether they're the best decisions or not.

 

[Lollipop2]

I live in DC and had to take a PCR test recently. The lab asked me if I am vaxxed and I asked why that matters. They said for calibrating the test. When I pressed further, they said the test has different "sensitivity" (which I read to mean cycle threshold) settings for vaxxed and unvaxxed. Not a 100% confirmation that the CDC decision on different threshold for sequencing samples from vaxxed and unvaxxed did affect general pandemic testing, but pretty close IMO.

This is exactly what my friend said her MD’s practice was encouraged to run different numbers for jabbed and unjabbed. I don’t have proof so never talk about it - but EXACTLY as you wrote is happening.

 

[AlaskaJono]

As a result of lateral thinking on my part, maybe related to the "photo" comparison, I decided five weeks ago to focus on the money flow related to the "FED" Central Bank, BlackRock. Starting in Sept 2019 mind you..... Trillions. And to not focus on sickness stuff. Vaccine related Thromboembolisms, Myocardopathy in kids, D dimers etc.. You know, I did not want to get depressed.....
This clearly shows a picture beginning in Sept/ 2019, then March 20, 2020, and continued. Repo markets buyout i.e. repo loans, inject liquidity, QE, all these things. So add this to the photos you have of WEF, IMF, BlackRock, Vanguard, it will show you a path to more "photo". This was/is actually spelled out.
Hmmmm. Difficult to accept, but the money trail rarely lies.

 

[Drareg]

It is actually a constantly recurring theme in many political/health/social issues. When the power that be are caught lying, they say we have to prove with absolute certainty it is a lie despite us showing we have evidence they are lying while them having none that their version is true. In other words, the powers that be define what is "true" and anybody claiming the opposite has to spend an exorbitant amount of time/money/effort to even articulate a good case. @Drareg has been pointing it out for years. It is a type of a denial of service attack (DoS) often done on IT systems, but unlike the IT type we have the ability and right to keep demanding that the side creating arbitrary definitions defend/substantiate those, instead of the burden being on us. I really wish more people realized that "consensus" means nothing when it comes to understanding reality, be that in science, politics, or even personal interactions.

Yep, it’s the speed at which they change the narrative also, change the story, change the lead, in other words lie more about something else.
When we do want information we encounter the secrecy’s act that most governments have, the CIA have secrets and are still allowed to have them even though we have evidence of their past behaviors.
It’s to protect the state they say, you say you are part of the state, they say patriot act, trust us, some folks get tortured

They have used media to popularize the "secret agent" like James Bond as necessary and good, it’s the pathology of a pop cultured stream of consciousness that stops people from realizing the contradiction.

 

[Mito]

Correlation between 3790 qPCR positives samples and positive cell cultures including 1941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[JamesGatz]

It's just too bad Kary Mullis isn't still alive to see this grave injustice that's become of his PCR test ... Died RIGHT BEFORE the pandemic ... ha ha what are the chances ? our world is just full of coincidences ha ha

 

[Sherbert]

"CDC lowers PCR CT count and diagnostic guidelines ONLY for the vaccinated"

Otherwise known as tampering with the data.