Hey it is not cult like at all. I would calm down. I personally have been following quite closely this entire scamdemic from Jan 2020. AND I actually caught Covid in late May/June last year so have experienced it first hand. I was a bit disappointed to read in your posts the fear and questioning whether to get the jab or not. If you trust the wisdom of Peat - which I do and has rocked my health - there is absolutely NO reason to fear Covid - 19 AND many reasons to fear the jab.
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
CDC lowers PCR CT count and diagnostic guidelines ONLY for the vaccinated
Peatogenic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 746
It absolutely is cult-like. You and others have gotten super defensive when I've expressed only minor hesitancy or questioning. Not Peat-like at all . Why do you assume Im not familiar with the scamdemic? I started following it about April 2020 and learned a lot from this forum. I'm not contemplating getting the vaccine. I only expressed that it's the first time I've been "concerned" about info being released. Because it's the first time I've not been able to find contrary info. But what did a few people do on that post? They ganged up on me like I was stupid for being concerned, acted like they needed to educate me on why I'm foolish - sharing loads of unrelated info that I'm already aware of, and not really addressing the question.
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.
OP
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...
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...
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
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
Last edited:
I think if you hang on for a bit, the numbers you are seeking for the US will be quantified. It will only take a bit of time. I am sad you felt hounded. I personally am not trying to hurt anyone. It took me a bit to understand what you were looking for, then could point you in the direction. My intention is for people to be aware of all sides to make an informed decision and not be hounded into a life threatening medical treatment. Half my family fell for the fear porn and I have such a heavy heart for their future. It seems one of them has developed cancer out of the blue. Surprise surprise.
Peatogenic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 746
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 recommendations, 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...
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...
This is not the only piece of evidence. Earlier in the year, WHO also recommended lowering the PCR cycle threshold recommendations, 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...
But your response to them doesn't acknowledge what they and I are saying. It's for specimens sent *for the purpose of determining lineage*. You carry on in your reply that those '28' specimens are for determining positive cases in general for the vaccinated. Of course it's suspect that the CDC does not have correct and uniform standards for CT in determining positive cases in general for all testing places. But that's not the discussion.
It's very different to say that the thresholds are too high and - the thresholds have been lowered by the CDC in determining positive cases among the vaccinated. Which they have not.
Peatogenic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 746
Well you were very dismissive when I was emphatic about the PCR being a false claim. You said to just live in fear forever. But now you're all rational.
I don't know anyone who has even tested positive for covid, but I know very few people.
I was not dismissive - I do not believe anything they say. I know you are convinced it is a false story - I am open to it being false, but I do not think it is. My friend is a nurse in a private practice and they received a letter from CDC instructing them to use different cycles - of course this is hearsay and I have no proof so I do not bring it up, but it informs my belief the story is true.
I was being ironic about the fear. People are choosing that option. It is not a path to take - choose health freedom over any tyranny.
OP
I may have edited my post after you started typing. See my edits. Regardless of whether the CDC recommendation of threshold of 28 was for sequencing only, they themselves said a threshold above 28 is moot for detecting a strain. SARS-CoV-2 is a strain of coronavirus. The entire pandemic so far has been based on running the test with threshold cycle of 40-45. Given anything above 28 limit is moot, how do we even know we are detecting SARS-CoV-2 and not some other virus...or anything meaningful at all?
Peachy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2021
- Messages
- 2,360
So interesting! I just have to share, it’s that exact situation in Woodstock, GA. No one wears a mask. They’ve gone on as usual the whole time. My SIL is an art teacher there (also a follower of Ray Peat) and kids have never worn masks. There haven’t been any outbreaks in the school.
The city’s getting “nicest place to live in the U.S.” awards. It’s a similar demographic to what you described!
Peatogenic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 746
Exactly. But I was just correcting the claim that the CDC is isolating positive vaccinated people only under a better threshold. I'm not defending the CDC or saying that testing is legitimate. It would be doubly fraudulent if they were testing only vaccinated people more accurately. Which they're not doing, apparently.
Peatogenic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 746
To be clear:. I wasn't stating it's a false story, I was stating that the CDC has not released any info which would support the story of vaccinated people getting more accurate testing.
OP
CDC is not doing the tests, state and/or private labs are. Those were just guidelines from CDC for state labs on sending samples for sequencing, but the guidelines were for only samples from vaccinated people while the samples from unvaccinated people were still to be tested at the 40-45 limit. Why the discrepancy between the two? A new strain is just as likely to come from a vaccinated as from an unvaccinated person, so it makes sense to test both types of samples with the same threshold. There is some reason (nefarious or not) to mandate lower threshold cycle for samples send to CDC from vaccinated people, and not for other samples. What is that reason? Why is it not being revealed? Also, as I explained in my response to that other post, state labs often follow CDC guidelines and considering the WHO said to lower threshold below 30, but did not specify for whom (vaxxed or unvaxxed), the states are likely to follow CDC guidelines to make reporting easier and compatible and will prob test vaxxed with 28 and unvaxxed with 40-45 limit. just in case they have to send some samples to CDC later on. It makes it much easier/cheaper for them. 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.
Last edited:
Peatogenic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 746
I know the CDC is not doing the tests. The guidelines say that *if* tests are submitted for sequencing of vaccinated people, it should be at the '28'. But that's just for sequencing. They're not saying, "when you test vaccinated people, use the '28' threshold.". This discussion is about to drive me insane. What exactly is the disconnect here? Establishing a variant with a specific threshold is different than establishing positivity with a specific threshold. Which the CDC is not doing. Should they? Yes. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are diagnosed positive with really high thresholds. Vaccinated people are not being diagnosed positive on lower thresholds, they're only having the variant diagnosed on a lower threshold.
OP
No, it is not. There is no such thing as simply establishing a positivity. Positivity for what exactly? The test works based on a specific genomic sequence, so the results are specific to that sequence. So, you load the test with a specific genetic sample and if the test comes back positive then it means the person is positive for that specific strain. Now, the CDC itself said a limit above 28 is moot for determining strains. SARS-CoV-2 is a strain of coronavirus. When you are testing somebody (vaxxed or uinvaxxed regradless) with a PCR cycle threshold of 40-45 and their results come back positive what did you just detect!?!? Was it SARS-CoV-2, and hence counted as a positive case, inflating the pandemic? I don't think so, as the test with such limit cannot determine if it is was SARS-CoV-2 - a specific strain of coronavirus. So, what did it detect then??? Well, considering the reports/studies of positive tests results from shoes, plants, animals, etc who clearly did not have an infection and as such were not a positive vase, the answer is absolutely nothing meaningful. That precise issue with the PCR test, when run at high cycle threshold, is what led to its creator Mullis to warn that it should not be used for determining positivity/negativity of infection.
Here is the kicker - CDC has not yet distributed samples of the "Delta" or "Mu" genomic sequences to the labs around US (or the world for that matter). This is not something that can happen in matter of months, let alone weeks. Just thing of the tens of thousands of labs in the US alone that need to re-calibrate their PCR machines every time a new strain has been detected/sequences. And yet somehow in a matter of 2-3 weeks we went from the original SARS-CoV-2 to new strains?? So, all the claims of new waves of "Delta" or "Mu" are laughable, both because of the ongoing usage of the 40-46 limit at most labs, AND because the tests currently being run have not been calibrated/loaded with the newly sequenced "Delta" or "Mu". So, it is a double-delusion. Not only can we not claim the new waves are "Delta"/"Mu", we cannot even claim they are SARS-CoV-2 given the vast majority of samples so far are being testes with 40-45 limit. Remember, flu cases have been at zero since early 2020. Do you want to take a guess what the glorious PCR test is detecting in most people, especially at the 40-45 limit? The higher the threshold count, the higher the chance of a false-positive, which means not only labeling a healthy person as infected with SARS-CoV-2, but also labeling a person infected with virus of sufficiently similar genome (flu, other coronavirus, enterovirus, etc) as being infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Last edited:
Peatogenic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 746
I don't know why you keep getting exasperated showing how 45 is moot. I've never once said it isn't or even believed that. I. Understand. That. 45. Is. Ridiculous. But that's not the discussion. The discussion is the claim that only vaccinated people are getting tested at a lower threshold.
What exactly is "sequencing"? In their guidelines they say they can't do sequencing at a CT higher than 28. This all implies that a testing place has breakthrough cases with different CT values and that only the '28's are allowed for sequencing. This implies that "sequencing" is something separate from determining positivity.
tankasnowgod
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,131
OP
I am not getting exasperated. You said "Establishing a variant with a specific threshold is different than establishing positivity with a specific threshold", and I explained why I don't think this is the case. I also gave an example from personal experience about LabCorp in DC asking me about my vaxx status before doing a PCR test. When I pressed them on why it matters, they said the test is run differently based on vaccination status - direct quote "the test has different sensitivity, which we set based on status vaxxed or not". Isn't that an indication that different thresholds are being used by labs for generic testing regardless of whether those tests are being sent to CDC or not? Does it happen in every state? I have no idea, but state labs are likely to follow CDC guidance and WHO had already recommended lowering the threshold, but did not specify for which patients. Also, since CDC said different thresholds should be used for vaxxed/unvaxxed when sending samples to it for analysis, it usually leads to labs adopting the path of least resistance and doing these different thresholds for all vaxxed/unvaxxed samples it has, so that later on if CDC calls and says "send me X vaxxed samples for sequencing" the lab can just reach into a cabinet and randomly select X vaxxed positive samples that it knows have all been run at 28 limit, instead of scrambling to run the PCR test anew with a lower threshold on potentially ALL vaxxed samples in its possession (that were tested already but with a higher PCR limit) before it can find X positive samples to send to the CDC. Do you see what I am saying? If the CDC says it will accept samples from vaxxed people for sequencing only if they have been run at limit 28, then the labs will likely run ALL vaxxed samples at limit 28 so they have positive samples at the ready and can send any number of them on a short notice. Conversely, since the CDC is not saying anything about the unvaxxed samples, most labs will probably keep those analyzed at the cycle used for the whole pandemic, which is still 40-45. My experience at LabCorp a few days ago confirms this, at least for DC, but knowing how large labs work it is very likely this is the policy in most other states too.
Peatogenic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 746
Yes, you've slightly altered your claim from the first claim, but I could imagine testing CT being lowered following the new CDC guideline. But like I said before, I don't know what this separate thing of sequencing is or how often labs even send samples for sequencing. And the CDC has even stated that you can even send samples without a PCR value and they may be able to use them
OP
Yeah, the ZeroHedge article I quoted did exaggerate a bit - CDC did not tell labs directly "test all vaxxed samples with <28 and all unvaxxed with 40-45" but given the legal mandates that CDC can call a lab at any time and request samples for sequencing, and that it mandated that it will only accept samples that have been tested at 28 limit, virtually guarantees the lab will test all vaxxed sampled with that limit just to keep costs low and be always ready when CDC calls. Remember, if CDC calls and asks for X positive vaxxed samples for sequencing, and you have tested all your vaxxed samples with limit >28 then you'd have to expeditiously re-test potentially millions of samples with a much lower limit and with the lower limit there is no guarantee that you will even be able to come up with X samples from the Y million vaxxed samples determined as positive by a test with a much higher limit. The process is not that labs sometimes voluntarily send some samples to CDC as they see fit. Since it is a pandemic, CDC calls the shots and has the legal power to call any lab at any time and demand any amount of samples. So, the labs will naturally do what works best for them instead of having a massive team on stand-by 24x7 ready to re-run millions of test just to come up with X samples the CDC wants on a whim,..and repeatedly.
AlaskaJono
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2020
- Messages
- 941
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…
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?
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?
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
