@thisisthebreath So this document is "fake news", specifically the specimen collection section? Is it news, fake or otherwise, to read/quote a CDC document from their own website? I am sure you are very knowledgeable in this field and have lots of experience. I must confess I have zero medical/laboratory testing knowledge barring high school dissections of frogs and cockroaches. But would say, with the greatest possible restraint, your assertion is downright insulting. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf
You attempted to debunk the CT being lowered when the guidance said to start using the IFU for the CT, but you basically just cherry picked a couple of IFUs that didn’t have it lowered. A proper debunking would have shown that the majority of machines used have IFUs that say that. So you didn’t even debunk that, which is different from here where the CDC guidelines say CT of 28 used for postvax infections. Your previous debunking shows that they are skewing vax data.
the CDC did not issue any guidelines prescribing different CTs for testing of post-vaccinated people.
They simply laid down a requirement that any samples sent in for sequencing must be positive below 28, i.e. not among the potential false positives of the higher CT
That’s not debunking? Your argument is garbage without proof the machines you gave are used for the majority of testing.
To your latter point, they laid down the requirement as a gating function for what’s considered in the vax study. Unless there is another doc doing the same for all cases, you are wrong. If there is such a doc, there is still malfeasance because they are reporting case numbers they themselves don’t consider statistically accurate.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!