Dr. Glidden’s Website
Chapter 2 Testing Inaccuracy & Shortcomings In this chapter I will be, in-part, paraphrasing from an article published at “offguardian.org” and written by Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter. To read the original article, please go here. All medical tests have parameters which define how accurate they are. These parameters are referred to as the “Sensitivity & Specificity” of the test. Here are the definitions of these terms: • Sensitivity is the proportion of patients with a disease in whom the test is positive. • Specificity is the proportion of patients without a disease who test negative. For a lab test to be valid, it’s sensitivity and specificity must be compared to a “goldstandard.” As it turns out, the tests currently available for SARS coronavirus 2 are completely unreliable, as they were never compared to a Gold-Standard. Why? Because a gold-standard for the testing of the SARS coronavirus 2 does not exist! If someone had fulfilled the Rivers Criteria and actually isolated a virus, then cultured and multiplied it - that would be the Gold Standard. But as mentioned in the previous chapter – that has not been done. The horse is so far out of this barn now that researchers are saying that the GoldStandard for the test is the test itself in concert with a person showing the symptoms of COVID-19! That’s like saying “I have a test to prove that you are a witch. If I throw you in the water and you float then you are a witch, because everyone knows that witches float.” I mean – seriously, we shut down the entire world’s economy because of this??? The test that is used to detect the SARS coronavirus 2 is called a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test. It is interesting to note that the person who invented it, Kary Mullis, (who, by the way, received the Nobel Prize for its invention), never intended it to be used to detect a viral infection. In essence this test is not really a test at all. It is a 21
