The traditional US test for COVID-19 (the nasal swab PCR test) has a high false negative score in the first few days of infection. There isn’t enough viral material yet in most cases to get a good result. It’s also subject to extended positive tests due to lingering noninfectious viral proteins remaining in a recovered patient’s system for sometimes weeks after the infection has cleared.
Hopefully the Yale saliva test that was recently approved provides a clearer picture and is less subject to collection errors and contamination issues.
The widespread diagnostic test for the virus in a patient, the PCR, is riddled with irreparable flaws. It spits out false-positives, because the test reacts to the presence of irrelevant germs that have nothing to do with a purported COVID.
Most importantly the test has never been vetted, in the real world, for its claimed ability to detect whether a patient is ill or is going to become ill.
According to the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel https://bit.ly/2L8NV9I
“Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.
Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions.”
Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. Then again, maybe the COVID virus is not be in the patient’s body either.
From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” https://bit.ly/3cidWiS
“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”
Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.
As far as the “assays that detect the 2019-nCOV that are currently under development. Yeah, just a few.
For a test that is supposed to be so definitive and accurate, there sure are a great many firms in development of testing for the diagnosis of COVID-19
Actually, 633 of them the diagnostic pipeline at the time I posted this in June as a matter of fact. However, there are now 790 companies working on this still https://bit.ly/3clw4Za
If the testing on this is so definitive, why are 790 companies still developing testing for it?
Possibly because they still have not effectively isolated the virus and still don’t know what exactly it is that they are looking for.
Or could it be that it is extremely difficult to detect this SARS-CoV-2 virus because it is easily defeated by the immune system? (Note: SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hmmm…thought this was something so novel we have not seen it before? When then is it so similar to the SARS virus that it is called SARS-CoV-2 then? That would indicate that it is similar in nature to a virus we are well aware of so similar to a known virus that it is labeled as -2.
Gee, maybe not so novel after all huh? No more novel than any other mutated SARS virus which is quite common with RNA viruses like this SARS-CoV-2 virus btw. All RNA viruses mutate regularly which is why these virus vaccines are so ineffective, their target changes so quickly.
Or possibly that it is so immensely difficult to test an individual for a specific virus when the samples are always contaminated with all kinds of germs including bacteria, other viral strains and other DNA/RNA bearing tissues?
But what do the manufacturers say about the COVID diagnostic test? How about this gem from Creative Diagnostics, a popular test manufacturer:
This product is intended for the detection of 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. https://bit.ly/2KnJ4kP
In other words: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease.
Pretty confident about their testing huh?
Perhaps that is why the CDC includes “probable cases” in their statistical counts:
What is a COVID-19 probable case?
A probable case or death is defined by
Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or
Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19. https://bit.ly/3bdziMV
Translation: You don’t even have to have “confirmatory laboratory testing performed” in order for the case to be considered a COVID-19 case.
I guess that could be helpful to the hospitals who have had their cash cows of elective surgery eliminated (80% of many hospitals incomes) and are losing money now.
They could just drop a medicare patient into the “probable COVID-19 category” and go from a standard Medicare admit of $4,600 to a COVID admit billable for $13,000 now. About a 3X billable increase.
And heck, if they can get them on a ventilator with a COVID diagnosis, the Medicare admit jumps to $39,000, over an 8-fold increase!
I guess its a conspiracy theory to imagine that hospitals losing money due to the contraction of their scheduled surgery income would begin to amazingly turn up more COVID cases and put some of these people with respiratory issues on ventilators as well.
Yeah…might not have anything to do with increasing revenues I guess since we know that ALL hospitals and doctors operate with full integrity and complete concern for ALL patients.
I don’t do the tests but I talked to someone who does them...the long q tip has to hit the back of your nose and be swirled around for 10 seconds....when I had my covid test, that did not happen. there is a great variance I believe in testing protocols....