In the source you linked it says nowhere htat the "cycle count skews the results".
And yeah I know it sounds like a meme but it’s right here
But that's not what you said. You said that 90% of PCR test results are false positives. The NY Times article says that "up to 90% of people testing barely carried any virus". Even if you barely carry any virus, you still have the virus. This is not a false positive. You may not be infectious, but you're infected. And there are more than one reason why a person could have a low virus load. Maybe the person is already over the infection. Maybe the person has a good immune system. Or maybe the person just got infected and if the test would have been taken two days later, the virus load could be in the infectious range.
If they are asymptomatic and non infectious that’s not a case, that’s a false positive. You don’t count as a case of influenza if you got tested with a PCR test and it found some part of that virus in your body right now, so why does covid?
This is not the definition of false positive. The definition of false positive is that you test positive as infected while you're not infected. Asymptotic and not infectious people are still infected and thus positive. You can't just change the definition because it fits your narrative.
You don’t count as a case of influenza if you got tested with a PCR test and it found some part of that virus in your body right now, so why does covid?
Because the PCR test searches for two gene sequences of the Coronavirus. If these two gene sequences are traceable in your swab, then there is a 98% chance that you're infected. PCR tests for influenza work the same way. Years ago, I did a PCR test for H1N1. And like any other PCR test it searched for traces of specific gene sequences. In this case it was H1N1 gene sequences.
Ahh thanks for pointing out the typo/ edit failure there lol. I retyped that bit hopefully it makes a bit more sense.
Fair enough, my point being is that the cycle count is what skews the results. There are sources that agree with this https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
And yeah I know it sounds like a meme but it’s right here https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
“up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”
In the source you linked it says nowhere htat the "cycle count skews the results".
But that's not what you said. You said that 90% of PCR test results are false positives. The NY Times article says that "up to 90% of people testing barely carried any virus". Even if you barely carry any virus, you still have the virus. This is not a false positive. You may not be infectious, but you're infected. And there are more than one reason why a person could have a low virus load. Maybe the person is already over the infection. Maybe the person has a good immune system. Or maybe the person just got infected and if the test would have been taken two days later, the virus load could be in the infectious range.
If they are asymptomatic and non infectious that’s not a case, that’s a false positive. You don’t count as a case of influenza if you got tested with a PCR test and it found some part of that virus in your body right now, so why does covid?
This is not the definition of false positive. The definition of false positive is that you test positive as infected while you're not infected. Asymptotic and not infectious people are still infected and thus positive. You can't just change the definition because it fits your narrative.
Because the PCR test searches for two gene sequences of the Coronavirus. If these two gene sequences are traceable in your swab, then there is a 98% chance that you're infected. PCR tests for influenza work the same way. Years ago, I did a PCR test for H1N1. And like any other PCR test it searched for traces of specific gene sequences. In this case it was H1N1 gene sequences.