TL;DR: Every RT-PCR test result should also include its related CT value (i.e. the number of 'cycles' the test went through), as without this information the test can be meaningless and/or misleading/manipulative. Apparently Florida has mandated that the Ct value be provided in such a manner, though have not been able to confirm this yet.
Many claims and allegations have been put forth as to how positive test RT-PCR test results (Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction test) are potentially underlying an essentially 'fictitious' pandemic (i.e. a re-branding of the endemic seasonal type flu to CV19). Controversially, a positive PCR test is being considered a CV19 'case'/infection (and included in CV19 stats), whether or not any symptoms of CV19 are actually being experienced/diagnosed by an individual/physician (i.e. such an individual is considered an asymptomatic CV19 case potentially capable of spreading CV19). However, such an individual may not be infectious (and/or have an infection) plus there are several reasons why/how a positive PCR test might show a false positive (such as picking up DNA material from a previous/earlier infection).
There are thus several concerns with the way PCT tests are being utilized. This post will just focus on one of the issues, i.e. the number of test cycles being utilized (Ct value), however, this other website page briefly and concisely explains several of the other concerns and is worth reading too.
About PCR technology. Supposedly, PCR technology is able to isolate a particular target section from a larger DNA strand, and then multiply in number the isolated section of DNA many times. Specifically, with each PCR cycle run, the number of the isolated segments double in number - thus the number of isolated segments increases (with each cycle) in the following manner: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1028, 2048, etc... You probably recognize this series from the values of binary columns (base 2). From wiki, 'In the binary system, each digit represents an increasing power of 2, with the rightmost digit representing 20, the next representing 21, then 22, and so on.'.
The purpose of using PCR technology is stated to be: to make it easier to test for any given DNA target section, for instance, a section believed to be that from a particular virus. To illustrate, if in the 'raw' swab there were just one single strand/section of the target DNA, then after 37 test cycles (i.e. running the RT-PCR with a Ct value of 37), there would theoretically be up to 237 of the target strands, which in longhand equals 137,438,953,472, i.e. close to 137.5 billion. Thus it then becomes far easier to detect if a given DNA target sequence is present (because of there now being so many more of them to measure compared to the relatively small number in the swab sample). Note, of course, that after 37 cycles approx 137.5 billion is just if there had been one strand/section of the target DNA in the swab sample - if there had been 100, then after 37 cycles there could potentially be approx 13.5 trillion.
However, staying with just one target strand/section in the raw swab sample, if instead 38 cycles were used, then after PCR there could be up to near 275 billion target strands, and with 39 cycles, up to near 550 billion and with 40 cycles, up to near 1.1 trillion. So you see how with each extra cycle of the test, the potential number of target DNA strands increase exponentially. There is a useful little tale which illustrates the power of such an exponential magnification:
The story goes, when chess was presented to a great king, the king offered the inventor any reward that he wanted. The inventor asked that a single grain of rice be placed on the first square of the chessboard. Then two grains on the second square, four grains on the third, and so on. Doubling each time.
The king, baffled by such a small price for a wonderful game, immediately agreed, and ordered the treasurer to pay the agreed upon sum. A week later, the inventor went before the king and asked why he had not received his reward. The king, outraged that the treasurer had disobeyed him, immediately summoned him and demanded to know why the inventor had not been paid. The treasurer explained that the sum could not be paid - as by the time you got even halfway through the chessboard, the amount of grain required was more than the entire kingdom possessed. (source)
Incidentally, 264 equates to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 grains of rice, which wiki suggest is '...over 1.4 trillion metric tons—about 2,000 times annual world production' (link).
Thus hopefully you should be now appreciating how significant the number of PCR test cycles (Ct) is in terms of the probability of a target piece of DNA being 'found'/identified. [Note that the actual testing for the target DNA strand in the amplified sample, is said to be done by some process involving the measurement of the degree of fluorescence.]
The embedded single page document below provides an overview of the RT-PCR test (including a useful graph) and explains how the cycles fit into whether a test can be presumed 'positive' or not. In a few sentences, the PDF helps understand how the luminescence part of the test fits in. In case the embedded PDF doc is not showing for you, it can be viewed in Google PDF reader here. [Discussion is continued further, under the PDF doc.]
The PDF states:
Cts < 29 are strong positive reactions indicative of abundant target nucleic acid in the sample
Cts of 30-37 are positive reactions indicative of moderate amounts of target nucleic acid
Cts of 38-40 are weak reactions indicative of minimal amounts of target nucleic acid which could represent an infection state or environmental contamination.
However, a concern is that labs around the world are running higher cycle counts on tests: For instance, the linked article above states:
A PCR test is amplifying samples through repetitive cycles. The lower the virus concentration in the sample, the more cycles are needed to achieve a positive result. Many US labs work with 35 to 45 cycles, while many European labs work with 30 to 40 cycles.
and:
Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside, explained to the New York Times: “Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35.” According to the New York Times, up to 90% of positive tests at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a ct of 30.
Why do labs use such high ct values? From a lab perspective, it is safer to produce a “false positive” result that puts a healthy, non-infectious person into quarantine, than to produce a “false negative” result and be responsible if someone infects his or her grandmother.
In addition, there is concern among some about the possibility that the controllers (in synchronized fashion) might be using the number of RT-PCR test cycles utilized (i.e. 'sample amplification') to 'artificially' ramp up and/or ramp down the sense of pandemic (as it suits them). As in the overall death rates don't anywhere near match what the high number of positive PCR cases imply (see the post here for an interesting graph).
It seems fitting to hear directly from Karry Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for his inventing the PCR test. You can find the video here (you might need to remove the proxy from the popup) or you can find an archive of the video saved here. This Mullis video is only a couple of minutes long and is highly recommended.
NB: I feel the need to mention the following. Though PCR appears to be a valid process which actually works in practice (as opposed to being just theory), nevertheless I remain somewhat skeptical of it. It just seems too incredible/too fantastical to me, after looking more into exactly how it is stated to work. I mean that if the script for what is taking place now was written say over a hundred years ago - then certain 'plot devices' would have needed to be put in place also. In this respect, I don't feel sure that Karry Mullis wasn't just a lifetime actor, with a script featuring him coming up with an incredible invention. Also, because PCR is not something which a typical individual can test and/or experiment with (so as to research its viability), granting it legitimacy thus becomes an act of faith. And such pure acts of faith aren't reconcilable with proceeding empirically. When looking more into PCR, I felt I was hearing from the same 'sort/type' who might study (and preach) astrophysics, with all their black holes and exploding galaxies - which I consider is all so much bunkum and nonsense (please see these two posts, here and here). It might be for example, that PCR can magnify 'free roaming' genetic material in general - but as to it also being able to identify specific sections (say related to a claimed virus) by the utilization of what are technically termed PCR Primers - well in truth, that seems almost 'too good to be true' to me. As regards the possibility of Karry Mullis being a lifetime actor, for example I came across one anecdote about how he would sometimes start his lectures with overhead projections/slides of his current girlfriend - and my sense was that it was all a bit whacky to be true. In my experience, such a character doesn't fit with the expected character profile of (supposidly) one of the most skilled and gifted scientists the world has known.
