hmmm. imo the paper should be accompanied with an 'oxymoron warning' stemming from its use of the term(s) "asymptomatic highly infectious" for this "highly pathogenic" virus. one of the summary tables for this paper included two "reported asymptomatic cases" with relatively high PCR test results - the Oliver et al paper (2022) with a PCR Ct reading of "mid-30s" and the Aznar et all paper (2023) with (only) "two" PCR Ct readings of "35.8" and "34.6".
so i asked my browser's AI: is an "asymptomatic case" of H5N1 automatically an "infection" at PCR Ct readings of 31 or more? here's its reply:
"A positive PCR test for H5N1 with a Ct value of 31 does not necessarily mean the virus is highly infectious. The Ct (cycle threshold) value reflects the amount of viral genetic material detected—higher Ct values (e.g., 31–35+) indicate lower viral load. However, detecting RNA does not confirm the presence of live, replicating, or transmissible virus.
For example, a study on H5N1 in milk from infected cattle found samples with Ct values of 31, but no viable infectious virus could be isolated using cell culture or egg propagation methods, suggesting the detected RNA may come from non-infectious viral fragments.
While H5N1 is inherently a highly pathogenic virus in birds and can cause severe disease in mammals, its transmissibility between humans remains very limited. A Ct value of 31 alone does not confirm high infectiousness—it must be interpreted alongside clinical symptoms, exposure context, and virological data such as viral culture." [end of quote]
my conclusion: a high Ct reading recorded from an asymptomatic host does not automatically confirm infection! though the paper does qualify its conclusions in the last sentence, the headline is misleading. and please also note that the CDC affiliation.
I was under the impression that PCR was altogether an improper method for testing. Kary Mullis, himself said PCR should not be used to diagnose illness because if done in just the right way PCR could find "just about anything in just about anybody."
I second George's concern. We simply cannot trust that PCR tests will be used in a way that ensures reliable results. When someone reports "non-symptomatic" infection found via PCR tests, that raises a red flag for me. We already went through the Covid "pandemic", hyped by misused PCR tests. We should not go there again.
I would tend to think that if there was an asymptomatic (non-symptomatic) case of A(H5N1) and you found it with PCR, you were looking for it. Well, of course they were, but what else will they be looking for in the future. I believe that, properly used, PCR could be a valuable tool to show what to look for in patients already presenting as somehow mysteriously ill but to draw a conclusive diagnosis on evidence from PCR is fraught with peril. I firmly believe that Christian Drosten destroyed countless lives and futures for people all over the world with his PCR "test."
fake PCR tests; fake orchestration ........... they go and on ..... highly infectious asymptomatic disease; give us a break ........ scream; shriek; experts warn; scientists warn; doctors warn
hmmm. imo the paper should be accompanied with an 'oxymoron warning' stemming from its use of the term(s) "asymptomatic highly infectious" for this "highly pathogenic" virus. one of the summary tables for this paper included two "reported asymptomatic cases" with relatively high PCR test results - the Oliver et al paper (2022) with a PCR Ct reading of "mid-30s" and the Aznar et all paper (2023) with (only) "two" PCR Ct readings of "35.8" and "34.6".
so i asked my browser's AI: is an "asymptomatic case" of H5N1 automatically an "infection" at PCR Ct readings of 31 or more? here's its reply:
"A positive PCR test for H5N1 with a Ct value of 31 does not necessarily mean the virus is highly infectious. The Ct (cycle threshold) value reflects the amount of viral genetic material detected—higher Ct values (e.g., 31–35+) indicate lower viral load. However, detecting RNA does not confirm the presence of live, replicating, or transmissible virus.
For example, a study on H5N1 in milk from infected cattle found samples with Ct values of 31, but no viable infectious virus could be isolated using cell culture or egg propagation methods, suggesting the detected RNA may come from non-infectious viral fragments.
While H5N1 is inherently a highly pathogenic virus in birds and can cause severe disease in mammals, its transmissibility between humans remains very limited. A Ct value of 31 alone does not confirm high infectiousness—it must be interpreted alongside clinical symptoms, exposure context, and virological data such as viral culture." [end of quote]
my conclusion: a high Ct reading recorded from an asymptomatic host does not automatically confirm infection! though the paper does qualify its conclusions in the last sentence, the headline is misleading. and please also note that the CDC affiliation.
There’s a theory that our understanding of “viruses” is completely wrong and flawed.
Our modern understanding comes from a financial incentive to produce vaccines— but when see what viruses are in a different light, there nothing to be afraid off: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience
I was under the impression that PCR was altogether an improper method for testing. Kary Mullis, himself said PCR should not be used to diagnose illness because if done in just the right way PCR could find "just about anything in just about anybody."
I second George's concern. We simply cannot trust that PCR tests will be used in a way that ensures reliable results. When someone reports "non-symptomatic" infection found via PCR tests, that raises a red flag for me. We already went through the Covid "pandemic", hyped by misused PCR tests. We should not go there again.
I would tend to think that if there was an asymptomatic (non-symptomatic) case of A(H5N1) and you found it with PCR, you were looking for it. Well, of course they were, but what else will they be looking for in the future. I believe that, properly used, PCR could be a valuable tool to show what to look for in patients already presenting as somehow mysteriously ill but to draw a conclusive diagnosis on evidence from PCR is fraught with peril. I firmly believe that Christian Drosten destroyed countless lives and futures for people all over the world with his PCR "test."
completely agree with both of you.
Xlear might be a good nasal spray for those on a tight budget. Dr. M previously recommended it or povadone iodine nasal spray.
Agreed, have heard Dr. McCullough recommend Xclear too.
fake PCR tests; fake orchestration ........... they go and on ..... highly infectious asymptomatic disease; give us a break ........ scream; shriek; experts warn; scientists warn; doctors warn