Dr. Chris Martenson explains the PCR test and the importance of cycle count to the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWqNl4UUlH0

Cycle count 35 or less --> bad

Cycle count 40 or more --> good

Yet they are being considered the same result by the WHO and government regulators.

So if you go in for a test and "test positive" make sure you are told the cycle count at which you started to test positive, or the result may be meaningless.

This guy is a co-founder of Peak Prosperity, a wealth and financial website. "While Martenson calls himself a scientist in the video’s titles, his claim to the label is, according to him, based on a 1994 PhD from Duke’s Department of Pathology where he specialized in toxicology. While he published scientific research in the ’90s, for at least the last decade Martenson has focused on predicting stagflation and other large shifts in financial markets." He is one of a bunch of people cashing in on the pandemic on YouTube.

I looked for REAL information on his interpretation of the PCR test based on medical science. It was thought when this first was discussed last summer, it was picking up people who had low virus loads and they weren't contagious. Since then, it's becoming apparent that these people ARE contagious and it's possible are the driving force behind some of the spread that is happening right now. There is just so much we don't know about this virus.

Thank you for that paper on COVID PCR, Jarkeld! And since you work in the field, it comes from a reliable source. That is exactly the kind of scientific research and background that should be utilized. I also note in reviewing the paper that the data indicates exactly the opposite of what this Martenson is saying. Lower Ct values mean worse outcomes while higher Ct values can mean better outcomes. He just says one is bad and one is good. In reality, it is MUCH more complicated than that.

One of the statements in the conclusions of this scientific paper is spot on. "Clinical knowledge of COVID-19 is constantly evolving, with studies being published at a high rate; however, there are currently only limited data relating to the correlation of viral loads with patient prognoses, such as mortality or disease progression." The paper was published in June 2020, so things may have changed since then as the evolution of knowledge of SARS-coV-2 is accelerating.

The paper's conclusion for those who don't want to wade through the research data:

"Reporting of qualitative SARS-CoV-2 test results as positive or negative is sufficient for diagnosis, but the totality of currently available data indicates that the reporting of Ct values may offer benefit to clinicians in making clinical and patient-management decisions for patients with COVID-19 as well as guide infection control, public health and occupational health decisions. However, additional data and prospective studies are required to support this."

A more recent one, but alas in Dutch: From the Netherlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde

Google Translate!

Thanks to all for providing two sides and people can check out both and determine which they find more credible.

Since Covid discussions are as controversial as politics and religion, I will close this.

Ana