The amount of cycles used seem to vary a great deal from what I've seen.  Some places report the number of cycles they used.  Some do not.   They do seem to be higher than 30 and I've seen as high as 45.

As to the difference.  I pretty much go off of what the guy who invented the PCR test stated.

Whether it is insignificant or not would also depend on the sample size.

Regardless it is relevant to the scientific method to be consistent.  Opinion on insignificance is not part of the scientific method.  It is something that corrupts it.

I did a quick search...

[Here](https://thevaccinereaction.org/2021/02/who-issues-new-guidance-on-use-of-pcr-tests/) is one article.

They recommend up to 40 there...  Though there is no STANDARD which is a big part of the problem.

CT is the number of cycles.

[This PDF might be useful...](https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/main/2020/09/cycle-threshold-values-sars-cov2-pcr.pdf?la=en)


![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/dwinblood/Eo2BRcNQhekNZfb2AEDjvnaZ7pXXGXqk8827QHGkq7BWYwbTg7nyVo8ACTAhH8nsak4.png)


It is a rabbit hole.  If you search on your own you'll likely find some useful info I don't know about.  

Here is an interesting article:
[Coronavirus: The Truth about PCR Test Kit from the Inventor and Other Experts – Video](https://stateofthenation.co/?p=30880)

> After all, no number of cycles should tell you that you have are or have been infected with something you haven't. 

It can show the presence of just about any virus with enough cycles.  It doesn't mean you are infected.  That is part of the problem.   It can amplify just environmentally present miniscule items and thus provide a "this is present" result.

As the CT cycles are increased this becomes more and more likely.

The idea of using this to test for the presence of something is useful.  If it is consistent.   When it is not consistent and the results are being compared as some form of equivalence that is a fallacy.

I found another article that explains it pretty well:
[Explained: What is the ‘Ct value’ in a Covid-19 test?](https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-the-ct-value-in-a-covid-test-7291682/)

"What is the significance of the ICMR threshold of 35?

Globally, the accepted cut-off for Ct value for Covid-19 ranges between 35 and 40, depending on instructions from the respective manufacturers of testing equipment. The ICMR has arrived at the Ct value of 35 based on laboratory experiences and inputs taken from several virology labs."

Yeah I don't see a nefarious pattern yet.  I have one bot downvoter that downvotes all of my posts but it is pretty insignificant.

Yep.  I am often called an anti-vaxxer.

That is not the case.

I am an anti-liability denier...  If you told me I should eat some manufactured food product and told me the manufacturer had no liability for damage due to a problem with the product I'd probably not eat the food.

If you have to label me a heretic, or call me selfish then that too is not a good reason.  Both are appealing to emotion either shame, or guilt.

OH no, I don't want to be considered selfish...

Oh no, I don't want to be called an anti-vaxxer... they cancel people like that.  I don't want to be cancelled.

I know some vaccines work.  I also weigh the risk.  If I was traveling somewhere with a known disease with a working vaccine and the disease is more likely to threaten my life and future than the potential adverse side effects to the vaccine then I'd likely take the vaccine.

However, if the manufacturer had no liability... I'd be less likely to.  It'd seriously depend upon how dangerous I thought not taking the vaccine would be.

In the meantime, if they had discovered a common over the counter drug combination if taken early enough completely could solve the problem I'd not be interested in the vaccine at all.

Take the Roto virus...

It killed like 1% of new born infants but only in countries with poor access to hospitals.   If you can get to a hospital it is 100% treatable.   The vaccine on the other hand ends up that 13% of infants get a bowl blockage that kills them.

If the vaccine is more likely to kill you than the illness no thanks.  Again without any liability to the manufacturer.

Wasn't it Elon Musk who months ago was talking about receiving 2 negative tests, and 1 positive test result when he was tested on the same day?

>Its infuriating that so little care is put into research, but so much trust is put into beaurocratic politicians who get paid to work from home.


It's just sad that is the current situation we find ourselves in this insane society....@phusionphil



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@informationvault/qspogr)</sub></center>

Yes.  It is pretty important.  I personally suspect that anytime they needed to show improvement they could lower the CT threshold.  If they needed a surge to support the narrative they could increase the CT threshold.   Then again by not sharing the information this is difficult to prove.  It is just a suspicion.

I had it before the CDC and government were on it here in the U.S.  My mother and father in-law who live with me (*he just turned 90*) both got it (January, 2020) and were tested for Influenza and Pneumonia and they both came back negative.  This is before they began testing for COVID.

It went through my house.  I got it.  The symptoms matched and the after effects.  Including the seeming to go away and then coming back several times.   It hit me hard enough I lost about 20 pounds in a week.   I remember thinking that if I didn't have the discipline to force myself to eat and take fluids it could have killed me as it was probably the most unenjoyable experience eating I think I've ever had.

Then it was over...

Then the CDC and other places finally started talking about it and things finally started showing up on their website weeks after we'd dealt with it.

I was on top of the news.

I also could see the intentional fear being pushed.

At first it was really deadly because they didn't know how to respond to it.   Not to mention some sick states (e.g. Michigan and New York) intentionally sending people that are recently diagnosed with it by hospitals to stay in nursing homes among the most vulnerable populations.   

I was so mad when I saw that.  I wouldn't have even known if not for the fact one of the people they sent was a young guy that videoed himself beating up an old man in the nursing home TWICE.  The young guy had been diagnosed with COVID and that is where they sent him.  That is when I found out about it.

I was very angry.   I knew the reason.   Make the deaths worse than they had to be.  It had multiple advantages.  1) they could blame it on Trump, and they did.  2) they could ramp up the fear due to the extra deaths.

They had such bad Trump Derangement Syndrome they didn't even use the Hospital Ship that the Trump Administration made available while simultaneously talking about how their hospitals were full and Trump wasn't helping them.

Then there is Hydroxychloroquine.   That stuff works.  Far better than the vaccines.  It is super inexpensive and it has been around so long they know the dosages, side effects, and how to deal with it.  It has been approved for off label for a very long time.

Yet it is super inexpensive.   Instead they pushed Remdesivir which is expensive and not as effective.  Anthony Fauci himself was invested in the company making Remdesivir.

Follow the money...

Follow the fear...

Conspiracy theory?  Yes that is what it is.  It is a theory that people have conspired to take advantage of the situation.

Does that mean it is not true?  No.  It also doesn't mean it is 100% true either.  That is difficult to prove.

I do think it is at least probable though.  I am fine with whatever pseudo-religious label someone wants to stick me with... Denier, Heretic, Blasphemer, Conspiracy Theorist, Infidel, Nut Job, Racist, Anti-Vaxxer, etc.

At this point I consider those things about all equally meaningful... which is not at all.