Truthfully I saw this news probably around the way it broke. But I never really took the time to read and reflect upon it until earlier this morning.
A couple of things that people need to understand or admit about the CDC that almost no one does are these. First, these are not practicing doctors seeing and treating patients. There are doctors and people who work in the medical field who work for the CDC. Second, there has been some online confusion about just whether the CDC is a private organization or not. According to the numerous fact checkers, people are confusing the CDC Foundation, a private charitable organization with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an arm of the Health and Human Services Department. Frankly, I'm willing to accept that answer. But I don't know if them being a part of the government is better or worse. Either way, they clearly are agenda driven. That agenda either involves private self interest that perhaps enriches them. Or that agenda involves following the rest of the federal government's agenda. Which, that agenda is going to be influenced by the real powers behind the scenes and the money and the lobbyists that are always in fact influencing policy more than they ever should.
The biggest thing here is why indeed change the cycle count threshold unless doing so allows them to create an agenda and indeed an illusion that what they claim is true is true. We know even from Fauci himself that a cycle number of 35 or so is a target in analyzing these specimens. We know above 35 greatly reduces the accuracy and we know that labs around the country per CDC guidelines actually were going above 35 cycles. So when we dip down to 28, that's on the lower end. While I don't trust the PCR test to start with as the very inventor of it did not trust it to diagnose disease, chances are they are intentionally lowering it because they know that's still at a level in which the viral fragments may not show. Also, if it's only for the vaccinated, if there's no agenda, why separate vaccinated and unvaccinated samples? I'm no doctor, microbiologist, virologist, or the like. But I understand that if you have a set of guidelines and standards, they should apply to all people. I understand that you should use the same guidelines and standards pre vaccine and post vaccine if you're looking for accuracy and true results.
But clearly they're not looking for accuracy and true results or they wouldn't be doing this now. But then again, we know from the vaccine manufacturers themselves that when the jabs went to market there were essentially no promises or claims that they would keep one from getting or transmitting Covid-19. The only claims were that if you did get it, then your symptoms would be milder if you were vaccinated.