2. Testing Accuracy Shortcomings

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

DNA manufacturing machine, designed to help genetic researchers to duplicate DNA sequences billions of times.

This is where it gets really interesting (and upsetting), because this particular PCR procedure works by looking for (and then duplicating) gene sequences that researchers have pre-programmed into it. These are referred to as “Probes” and “Primers.” The Probes and Primers that were pre-programmed into the PCR test for SARS coronavirus 2 have never been proven to be a part of the virus itself! They were presumed to be part of the viral genome. Remember – the SARS coronavirus itself has never been isolated, so what the manufacturers of the test are using as their Probes and Primers are gene sequences collected from patients who were positively diagnosed with COVID-19. What!? That’s right. The pre-programmed gene sequences that the PCR test looks for have never been proven to be a part of SARS coronavirus 2. It’s all extrapolated guesswork. I wonder if the enormous amount of money generated by all of this testing had anything to do with this.

By the way - this is why the PCR testing results are all over the place, with one of the most famous being governor Mike DeWine from Ohio who tested Negative and then Positive on back to back tests given on the same day. The insanity gets even more arcane as evidenced by this product announcement inside one of the PCR tests distributed by Roche: “These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection.”

And for another nail in the coffin of the PCR test we have this statement by the FDA itself: “The detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR does not necessarily equate with an infectious virus.”

Wow – And all along I thought I was supposed to be the quack…

Additionally – even if the researchers somehow got it right with their preprogrammed Probes and Primers, in order for the virus to hurt people it must be fully intact. The PCR test only looks for a tiny part of the virus. If the virus has been destroyed, and tiny parts of it are floating around, which are then picked up and multiplied by the Primers and Probes, then the test will come back positive – even though the virus is no longer a threat.

But for the icing on the cake of PCR test stupidity let’s look at these data as reported by my colleague Sherry Tenpenny, DO etc. on Vaxxter.com:

Even if a person has had all the symptoms associated with a coronavirus infection or has had exposure to persons who have had a COVID-19 diagnosis, the probability of an RT-PCR test being positive decreases with the number of days past the onset of symptoms.

According to a study done by Paul Wikramaratna and others:

For a nasal swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 94% on day 0 to about 67% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 2% chance of a positive result.

For a throat swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 88% on day 0 to about 47% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 1% chance of a positive result.

In other words, the longer the time frame between the onset of symptoms and the time a person tests for COVID-19, the more likely the test will be negative.

We have just shown the scientific shortcomings of the PCR test, but what about the antibody test? As already discussed, the human immune system generates antibodies to microbes that invade it. If a scientist is smart enough, he/she can perhaps develop a test that looks for the presence of the antibodies to the SARS coronavirus 2, and voila – you win the gold ring. I wish it were that easy. It’s not. Here’s what the CDC says about antibody testing for this virus:

If you test positive.

• A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance that a positive result means you have antibodies from an infection with a different virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses). • Having antibodies to the virus that causes COVID-19 may provide protection from getting infected with the virus again. But even if it does, we do not know how much protection the antibodies may provide or how long this protection may last.

• Talk with your healthcare provider about your test result and the type of test you took to understand what your result means. Your provider may suggest you take a second type of antibody test to see if the first test was accurate. • You may test positive for antibodies even if you have never had symptoms of COVID-19. This can happen if you had an infection without symptoms, which is called an asymptomatic infection.

If you test negative

• You may not have ever had COVID-19. • You could have a current infection. o The test may be negative because it typically takes 1–3 weeks after infection for your body to make antibodies. It’s possible you could still get sick if you have been exposed to the virus recently. This means you could still spread the virus. o Some people may take even longer to develop antibodies, and some people who are infected may not ever develop antibodies.

Let me summarize the above concerning the antibody testing for SARS coronavirus 2:

• If you test positive you may or may not have the virus, and it is possible that you will become infected again. • If you test negative, you may or may not have the virus. So, get another test.

The testing inaccuracy breeds another phenomenon: Gross misrepresentations of the numbers of people who are actually sick. When you marry this with the current trends in medical reporting, you get results which are completely out of touch with reality and which only serve to mislead people and stoke fear. Hospitals and doctors (for whatever reason) are reporting deaths from people with the SARS coronavirus 2 as if they died from the SARS coronavirus 2. So – if a patient dies from bacterial pneumonia and they test positive for the virus, that death is reported as being caused by the virus. In August, the CDC stated that only 6% of COVID-19 deaths in the US were from COVID-19 alone. The other 94% were from people with pre-existing health conditions who were pretty sick already and who presumptively were infected with the virus. This opens up an interesting discussion. If the majority of people who are

infected by the SARS coronavirus-19 do not die from it, and if the majority of people who do die with it had pre-existing health conditions, then why aren’t the pre-existing health condition people the ones being quarantined? It would make much more sense to do that than to lockdown the entire world, wrecking the economy in the process –and causing all kinds of collateral pain, suffering and death. 13

Also - what nobody is questioning (except me) is - Why are so many people sick with pre-existing conditions in the first place, and why don’t the MDs know how to treat them effectively when they come down with a viral infection? The answer to these questions I wrote extensively about in my 2 books, which you should get and read.14 Here is the short answer. So many people are sick with pre-existing medical conditions because the MDs are trained in medical therapeutics which are insufficient to this cause. They are like color-blind artists trying to paint a picture of you family. They are going to get it wrong. The only reason they maintain their position at the top is because they and Big-Pharma control the medical monopoly – and they actively prohibit your access to all other systems of medicine – especially the ones that are more effective than theirs.

The icing on the cake of testing inaccuracy is just good-old-fashioned incompetence. Perhaps the most famous of these cases was from Texas. The Texas state Department of Health Services released numbers of COVID-19 cases in Colin county as a matter of public education. The number was just north of 4,600. This prompted an audit, after which the active number of COVID-19 cases was dropped to under one hundred. Was this from incompetence? Was it done on purpose in order to receive more Federal funding? Who knows? Either way you shake it, a 5,600% error is unacceptable. I am wondering if anyone lost their job over this…

Feeling all warm and fuzzy now? How about safe? Do you feel safe? Has your respect for the medical professionals in charge of all of this COVID-19 stuff increased or decreased after reading my little diatribe? To be frank, my respect for the medical professionals in charge of all things medical evaporated 30 years ago. It is high time that you too opened your eyes and dispassionately looked at all of the failures of

13 Lockdowns kill 21,000 in the UK; The Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Lockdowns; Epidemiologist Warns of Unintended Consequences From Lockdowns

14 Everyone Is Sick and I know Why; Attempt A Cure With Wholistic Medicine

conventional medicine. Only then will you be able to make an informed decision regarding how you chose to move forward to secure your own health in however much time is left to you. I will patiently wait for you to jump into the Naturopathic Medical boat – as it is superior in almost every regard to the ship of fools piloted by the MDs and Big-Pharma. Hope to see you soon.