Posted on 09/03/2020 7:31:57 AM PDT by sickoflibs
In the previous entry, we learned about The New York Times shocking report that the standard PCR tests for COVID-19 everyones been rushing out to get are woefully unreliable.
The Times looked at three sets of PCR testing data from Massachusetts, New York, and Nevada and discovered that, because of faulty procedures used at every single testing site in the country, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus at all.
The experts they talked to were astonished that such cases are even getting classified as infections.
Yet for some reason, the Times ran a weak-sauce headline completely downplaying their scandalous discovery: Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldnt Be.
But those eye-popping stats exposing the pervasive fraud propping up our regime of mass COVID-19 testing arent just absent from the headline. Readers dont find out about the enormous percentage of misdiagnoses the Times discovered until the articles half over!
The opening paragraph briefly states what they found, but only in very general and decidedly less alarming terms:
Some of the nations leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.
And its used as a means to immediately segue into a quite different topic, which the entire first half of the article aka, the only part anyones likely to read is devoted to:
But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests
You may not have heard about those new CDC recommendations to stop testing people without symptoms about which the Times and their anointed experts arent thrilled. But theyre significance cant possibly be overstated because of a crucial feature of any test that somehow never seems to come up in all the media articles pushing for mass COVID-19 testing: the rate of false positives.
Because any test for COVID-19 will produce a certain percentage of positive diagnoses for patients who dont, in fact, have the virus, mass testing means that alarming numbers of new COVID-19 cases will continue to be reported no matter how few are actually occurring.
The FDA says that one PCR test for COVID-19 in use has a false positive rate of 3%. That means that testing a million people a day with it would still result in 30,000 positive diagnoses being reported each day even if the real number of new infections dropped all the way down to zero!
If everyone in America were tested daily as some have proposed, even a .5% false-positive rate would result in over a million and a half new cases being reported daily in the absence of any actual new infections.
The fact that any test is going to have a non-negligible rate of false positives makes mass COVID-19 testing a means for ensuring that a phony pandemic will persist forever even after the real one has run its course.
Its important to understand, however, that the massive errors in PCR testing that the Times downplays but uses to push for another kind of mass testing to replace it are not, strictly speaking, false positives. They, instead, represent an additional much larger source of bogus COVID-19 diagnoses.
They dont occur because the test found something that wasnt there. Theyre a product of the faulty criteria laboratories are using to determine when to label perfectly accurate test results positive.
The problem starts because what the PCR test is designed to find is NOT the COVID-19 virus.
Thats going to surprise a lot of people given what our own public health officials have been telling us:
The CDC says that A viral test checks samples to find out if you are currently infected with COVID-19. The Texas Department of Health, The University of Colorado, and a host of other sources that ought to be reliable state: A positive PCR test means that the person being tested has an active COVID-19 infection. But these claims represent either deliberate deceptions or the grossest possible incompetence.
PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction, the biochemical process developed by a researcher named Kary Mullis in 1983 that the test uses.
Though it was important enough to earn Mullis a Nobel Prize, most are unaware that PCR wasnt designed to test for viruses at all.
Mullis invented it to synthesize genetic material for research purposes and, in fact, was strongly opposed to the way it wound up being used to test for the HIV virus.
Mulliss process takes segments of DNA through a cycle that doubles the amount. That might not seem like a big deal, but it starts to add up pretty quickly.
If, for example, you ran a single segment of DNA through just 40 PCR cycles, youd end up with 1 x 240 segments, which is over a trillion new copies.
Because viruses arent much more complicated than strands of DNA, its possible to use PCR to amplify any viral byproducts in a sample.
Most people probably think of viruses as microorganisms similar to bacteria. But theyre, in fact, much more primitive than bacteria and usually arent even classified as living things. Theyre not composed of cells, nor do they create their own energy or grow.
Believe it or not, viruses cant even reproduce on their own but, instead, have to trick their host organisms into doing all the work. In fact, performing that one trick is pretty much all there is to them.
Viruses are nothing more than small bits of genetic code surrounded by a shell that acts as a Trojan horse. Its shell allows a virus to invade the cells of living organisms. Once inside, the genetic code exits the shell, hijacking the cells functions to make it produce more copies of the virus.
The genetic material inside a viruss shell can be either DNA or RNA. The COVID-19 virus contains the latter. Mulliss process, however, works only on the former. So before its applied to test for COVID, another process is used to convert any RNA in the sample to DNA. Once thats done, the sample is run through a number of PCR cycles to amplify the amount of converted-viral-RNA that was originally in it so that it can be detected.
The problem with using polymerase chain reaction to test for viruses is two-fold.
The bits of genetic material whose amount is being amplified ARE NOT viruses. Theyre just the small segments of the inert genetic material found inside a viruss shell. Without the shell, they dont have any ability to infect a cell and reproduce. The PCR test, so to speak, doesnt detect live viruses, at best it only detects their remains. And even that depends upon assuming that the testing company has accurately sequenced the COVID-19 viruss genetic code and identified a small segment thats unique to it and will remain so as the virus mutates. But even supposing youre willing to trust that theyve really done all that, the detection of viral remains involves massively amplifying the amount in the original sample by running it through successive PCR cycles. And nothing about the PCR test itself will tell you if there was actually any live virus in the original sample at all, let alone how much. As the CDC itself has noted:
[R]ecovered patients can continue to have [the COVID-19 viruss] RNA detected in their upper respiratory specimens for up to 12 weeks after the onset of symptoms.
The actual live virus, on the other hand, hasnt been found beyond 3 weeks after symptom onset.
Moreover, even if you could be sure that youd found sufficient quantities of viral remains to indicate the presence of the virus itself, determining how much is crucial.
You have all kinds of minute viral traces in your body that never rise to the level of infection. Even if PCR testing could tell you that the remains it amplified indicate the presence of a live virus, youd still need to know the amount or viral load in order to tell if the person the sample came from has enough to be classified as infected.
Thats why Mullis objected to turning the process he created for generating research samples into a test for viruses by famously saying:
Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.
PCR cant detect quantity. At best, it can detect the presence of a virus, not the amount.
But, even detecting its presence will depend upon inferring theres some live virus based on the detection of viral remains. And thats the source of the massive amount of bad PCR diagnoses the Times reports in the articles second half. If you run a sample with minute traces of viral remains through enough cycles, youll wind up with enough to be detected.
And it turns out that laboratories have been running the samples their testing through so many cycles that those that dont have nearly enough viral remains to indicate the presence of a live virus are, nonetheless, being amplified enough to produce a positive test result.
Moreover, the CDC has been telling them to do it.
Apparantly Fauci has been out saying more negative things about the virus and the flu which FOX business has said has caused the sell-off in the market.
I heard a lot were false positives.
“It DOES NOT WORK. Liar. My wife is a scientist. Bring on your counter arguments. You dont have any.”
PCR works. Not sure what you mean.
The idea is to catch it so early it can not make you deathly ill. If you have a little of it, it may replicate to the point of sickness. Take your HCQ-Z then and stay well. It ain’t rocket science.
What you said is what I have been saying since the shutdown began. You said it better though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.