I am sorry but this doctor has been called out multiple times for making misleading claims. Some of what she says is "technically" factually correct but it is presented in such a way to illicit a response that the PCR test is a non-viable screening tool (qPCR is a tool in the diagnostic chain, I want to emphasize that because she is acting like it is solely used which it isn't.) She also vastly overestimates the sensitivity of PCR tests. Yes a single DNA fragment could, if left for long enough, produce a positive result in a PCR test however it would take weeks for a PCR test to produce viable results by which point its also possible that contamination occurred and corrupted the test, which is why we only run the tests for around 24 hours (think of PCR tests as a DNA photocopier that only photocopies a specific type of image... if there is a stack of 100,000,000 photos that it has to check and only 1 of them is the correct image that it can photocopy and it takes 1 day to check all 100,000,000 then at the end of that day you will have 2 photos... However if 10,000,000 of that 100,000,000 are the right photos then you will end up with 20,000,000 photos which is far easier to check if you made copies). Other things she says are also flat out incorrect.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
When you have various countries stating they are using tests with results from 35 to 40 cycles and are using these results to decide the figures that result in a lockdown and yet you have even Dr Fauci himself saying any test 35 cycles or over is unviable - There are grave and valid concerns with its misuse as a tool for screening in this way and those concerns are not being addressed at the level that the hysteria is being pushed regarding the 'cases, cases, cases' in the media.
She is not the only one that has stood up with such claims and they are not without grounding.
The CDC support only using a cycle threshold of 33 yet they have come forward with criticism of Fauci's description of how the CT works. The other thing is some machines a CT of 35 is equivalent to a CT of 40 on another machine... In other words CT is not an accurate metric to determining the efficacy of the test or to determining whether the test is a false positive or not. It is absolutely correct that CT cutoffs do need to be monitored and that it should be reported, however that number on its own is misleading without other information to go along with it. You are right that it can be misused as a screening tool, however that doesn't change that Dr Sam Bailey is intentionally misleading people with faulty or improperly worded claims about these tools. There are valid criticisms of these tools, hers are not that.
Well, I agree with her. And in rise of a totalitarian government caused by a 'pandemic' - it's not such a far reach that things would be used this way nor is one that speaks this way speaking conspiracy theory anymore as it's all coming to fruition and it's all public. lol
So, how about you, instead of criticizing with words - which are no greater than her words - provide sources of your claims. If you indeed have the truth and know it, simply saying so doesn't make it any more true.
Illustrate with research and sources why you are correct.