TNKPhDCFA Profile picture
Dec 15, 2020 9 tweets 3 min read Read on X
More important findings from the newly uncovered RI PCR test Ct data!

Recall I previously showed the Ct values of more than 5000 C19 PCR tests from the RI state health lab. Here they are again color coded for estimated infectivity. While all these folks were “positive”... Image
The green folks were likely not infective and the yellows may not have been. The higher the Ct score, the lower the viral load - the person is “less sick” or has remnant viral rna which can be detected for months while infectivity lasts maybe a week.
Yet it is nearly impossible to obtain Ct score data! Go ahead and ask for it- you will likely get a blank stare or a weak excuse about authorization or data storage. But you won’t get your Ct score. Ridiculous.
Now look what happens if we take the mean Ct values for each day- a clear trend emerges. As we moved into May the means climbed over 30. The average person receiving a positive test result was likely not infectious! What I believe @MichaelYeadon3 has termed a “cold positive” Image
The plot thickens when we add daily fatalities (7d ma). Here I have offset them by 21 days. The appropriate lag from test to fatality is arguable, but the point is as Ct values increase (avg viral load decreases), fatalities 3 weeks later decrease. Significantly... Image
As the average Ct rises past 30, deaths almost disappear.

Seems like reporting and tracking of Ct values would be very important for tracking the severity and progress of the pandemic! Trends in Ct PREDICT severity - and why wouldn’t they as Ct tracks viral load!
Yet we only receive a binary yes/no test result. PCR testing w/o Ct tracking is a blunt instrument used to bludgeon us into compliance and create a casedemic while the very important insights Ct scores could provide is ignored by “public health experts.” This must change!
Thanks again to @andrewbostom for suppling the data; uncovered via a FOIA request by RIFreedom.org
And now this comes to light- after 9mos the WHO recommends (in a wishy washy way) that Ct should be lowered and pcr can be prone to false positives. 🤔 https://t.co/AoiFSNFrck

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with TNKPhDCFA

TNKPhDCFA Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TTBikeFit

Apr 3, 2023
PCR test issues, summarized from our Twitter Spaces yesterday:🧵

👉PCR was never designed to diagnose a disease - it’s a lab test to find tiny amounts of rna for research purposes, and without clinical observations it is useless for diagnosis.

From the ThermoFisher manual:
👉 PCR test results drive all the other pandemic statistics: Cases, hospitalizations, fatalities, vax “efficacy.” They are also used to force quarantine, restrict travel, and shut down schools. Yet they were never meant to be used for broad surveillance.
👉 High CT PCR positives detect as little as a single copy of RNA - far higher amounts are required for a culturable or replication-competent infection. Presence of a tiny amount of RNA implies nothing about infection or infectiveness. “Asymptomatic infection” = oxymoron 🤡🌎
Read 7 tweets
Jun 27, 2022
My colleagues @ClareCraigPath and Dr Andrew Bostom (banned from Twitter) warned about the concerning heart damage signals a year ago. Key points apply to the recent Nature study too -> dailysceptic.org/archive/raisin…
“A 4x increase above baseline was evident in the seven days after the first dose for under-24 yo rising to over 27x for the 7days after the 2nd dose. The rate/M in males 12-17 was 17x higher than in men >50, 7days after the 1st dose, rising to 74x 7days after the second dose.”->
“For young and old it is not a clinically obvious diagnosis and it is likely that milder cases will have gone undiagnosed. Even for these mild cases, the long term outcome is unknown...Currently, more than half of the reports in VAERS are from patients under the age of 30. ->
Read 6 tweets
May 20, 2022
Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful FAUCI!

Terrifying!

But what is behind that green curtain?
Wait - who could it be?
Holy flying monkeys - it's NIH Head of Clinical "Bioethics" - Fauci's WIFE Christine Grady - in place for 12 years. Hmm, who knew? And why didn't we? It's not like there is any conflict there, right?
Read 7 tweets
Apr 7, 2022
💥State (RI) pediatric hospitalization data analyzed:

👉Only 1/3 of 0-18yrs Covid19 hospitalizations could possibly have been DUE TO C19.

@andrewbostom @ifihadastick and I have been looking at this ICD code data and there will be much more analysis to come. 1/6
Pop of RI 0-18 is ~220k. We also looked at flu hosps with primary dx of flu vs C19 hosps w primary dx U071 (=+C19 test). 100% of flu hosps had codes consistent w flu while only 56% of C19 primary dx were even possibly hosp DUE TO C19. 2/6
Looking at the ICD codes of these supposed pediatric C19 hospitalizations is shocking. There are children there w primary dx for attempted suicide, abuse, severe trauma, poisoning, cancer etc with a U071 Covid code thrown in.

💥folks these kids are not hospitalized for Covid 3/6
Read 6 tweets
Mar 31, 2022
These are the kinds of clowns that want to shut up anyone who dares question their approved narrative. Fact: a free society is built on open debate and free speech - never in history have the censors been the good guys. Censorship has never been for anyone’s good but the censors. Image
Gavin Yamey (Prof MD MPH!) is the poster boy for zero Covid nut jobs who have spent the last 2 years grifting for funds at your expense. He blocks anyone who disagrees rather than debating. He lies incessantly and moves to the next lie. No accountability in his echo chamber. Image
2 lies in that single tweet. Characterizing PANDA as “anti v” because we are are critical of the data and the unsupported assertions. 2nd, the GBD authors are not scientific advisors. Par for the course for these folk. Which is exactly why they love censorship. But looky here -> Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 18, 2022
Fun math exercise via El Gato Malo, prompted by the @CDCgov 's "adjustment" of it's C19 mortality data.

If the avg person gets 2x colds per year, even just mild feeling crappy stuff, if we were mass PCR testing >35Ct for "colds", How many "cases" do you think we would get? ->
Well now what if we counted any death for a month after your "+ cold PCR" as a "Cold death?"

That means for every person, there are 2 months out of 12 where they will flag as a "cold death." 17% of the year.

Since 2.9M die in the US annually, x17% equals 490k "cold deaths" ->
Now those are just 490,000 deaths, WITH a "positive cold test" in the past month. How many actually died FROM a cold? Some, but nowhere near all. This leaves out skewed risk in older folks, seasonality etc, but you get the point. ->
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(