Replies

So yes, there are problems.

Of course we all want the tests to be as accurate as possible... but a few anecdotal situations do not necessarily indicate that the tests we currently have are very bad. I am not sure how old you are... until 1972 we were given a smallpox vaccine that left a scar where it was administered on most people's arms.

It was not injected in the normal way, they used “a special bifurcated (two-prong) needle. Instead of puncturing the skin one time, the person administering the vaccine will make multiple punctures in the skin to deliver the virus to the skin’s dermis, which is the layer just below the epidermis that is visible to the world. The vaccine doesn’t penetrate to the deeper skin layers, such as the subcutaneous tissue. When the virus reaches this dermal layer, it starts to multiply. This causes a small, round bump known as a papule to develop. The papule then develops into a vesicle, which looks like a fluid-filled blister. Ultimately, this blistered area will scab over. While this signals what doctors usually regard as a successful vaccination, it can leave a mark for some people.

When my wife was in elementary scool she was given the smallpox vaccine several times over the course of a month because she was not getting the expected mark on her arm. Her teachers kept accusing her of rubbing the vaccine off of her arm and messing it up. They came up with various creative punishments to try and keep her from doing it. Her dad was finally asked to come to the school where it was explained to him why he needed to punish her for repeatedly messing up the vaccination.

Fortunately for my wife her dad never had the expected mark form on his arm when he had been given the vaccine multiple times years before. He was finally told by one of the army doctors that he had a natural immunity to small pox. He told the school officials and my wife's teachers to pound sand.

Tests for any biological agent do not give the expected result on everyone. We are all different. Even if the tests were somehow perfect and “100% accurate” there would still be some individuals who would not get accurate results. In this politically charged atmosphere there are going to be people who will argue that the results of any study that contradicts whatever their agenda is, are invalid. The tests are the first tools that will be challenged every time.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that the tests are bad even if doctors are the ones who are blathering about them. I have heard some real doozies lately coming from people who should know better. Lately I have heard medical people here argue that if an antibody test is only 99.9% accurate that still means that out of 350 million people that 350 thousand will get inaccurate results so this is not good enough. It is true, but laughable.