The New York Times Does Accidental Journalism on COVID-19 Testing

PJ Media ^ | 09/01/2020 | Stacey Lennox

[SeekAndFind]

Occasionally, someone who genuinely wants to inform the public actually publishes at the New York Times. For months the paper has been a full-throated participant in the COVID-19 panic-porn industry with stories ranging from a rare reaction in children to a “reinfection” in Hong Kong.

All of a sudden, reporter Apoora Madavilli came out with an honest report about COVID-19 testing. While I have been writing about this for a few months, it was shocking to see this level of honesty from the Times:

Some of the nation’s 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.

The article goes on to explain, in technical detail, the oversensitivity of the most common COVID-19 test, the PCR test. This fact was first noted in public by Dr. Beda M. Stadler, a Swiss biologist, emeritus professor, and former director of the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern. He noted the PCR test is not indicative of whether the virus particle found is alive or dead. It can also not assess whether the particle found is capable of replicating and causing an infection:

So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Correct: Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction

[SeekAndFind]

Dr. Stadler made these comments in an interview on June 10. By mid-July, the CDC had updated the guidance regarding retesting. The statement on the site is clear that for at least 90 days after recovery, viral debris can be detected in a patient’s airways. This virus is not capable of causing an infection because it is not capable of replication.

I would assert that the change was made as the result of pressure from people like Dr. Scott Atlas ( a recent addition to the Coronavirus Task force ), who understands the test and just how misleading it is to call every positive test a “case.” Atlas also understands the research confirming the proximity and length of exposure to an infected individual that will result in an infection. The CDC was also contacted for the New York Times article, making it apparent the corporate media was about to let this cat out of the bag. Better late than never.

[Jaded]

You know how this is gonna play out in the long run. “We tried to prevent Covid being weaponized by the bad orange man.”

[Sir_Humphrey]

Ah but don't forget that they ran this on a Saturday which is by far the least read edition of the week. has they thought it would hurt Trump/held Biden they would have run it front and center Sunday Morning which is their most read edition of the week.

The thing that gets me is now they will say, with a straight face mind you, that they covered this story in a fair and equitable manner. Also, note no follow ups on this as there most assuredly would have been if they thought it could hurt Trump

[chopperk]

Simple solution to the pandemic,,,,Make HCQ and Azithromycin OTC drugs so anyone who develops a cough and/or fever can go the nearest drug store and self medicate with the drugs along with Zinc Sulfate with correct dosage within 48 hours of symptoms and pandemic over.,,,,,instead of waiting a few days to get tested and 5 days for the results,,,,if over 60 years of age,,,,you’re dead.

[fireman15]

“So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Correct: Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].”

The other issue is that once a person has a positive test, they typically get tested over and over again until they finally start getting tests that come back negative. In our state and many others, every positive result is counted as a new case even if the person has been counted previously. And if someone dies from another cause like cancer or gunshot wound to the head they are counted as a coronavirus death if their body tests positive for the virus. Before the tests became available people who died in any type of respiratory distress were counted as a “presumptive” Coronavirus death.