+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

  1. Link to Post #1
    Germany Avalon Member Reinhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Location
    Munich
    Age
    70
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    28,361
    Thanked 351 times in 82 posts

    Default How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Hi Avalonians,
    it seems, we are all tangled up in a clutter of interdepended threads of facts, lies, dark hidden agendas, fear-provoked assumptions and 'educated' guesses or hopes.

    One way to deal with this complex mess is to identify the knots.
    For me one of the main focus points are the tests and their reliability
    (you know: starting with those silly temperature guns, PCR, all the way to MRI etc).
    I am quite familiar with Jon Rappoport's (highly recommended) take on the tests, but I would like to find additional scientific info.
    So: what are those tests measuring? What is the scientific basis?

    It should be important to clarify those questions, in light of the far-reaching political decisions that have been made already, and will be made in the near future--especially, when it comes to forced vaccinations.
    And I'm not even considering the next, even more complex, question of the synergistic effects of all those other 'causes'!

    Any info on the tests??!

    Reinhard
    The very moment the caterpillar thought the world would end, it turned into a butterfly.
    Laotse

  2. The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to Reinhard For This Post:

    Agape (13th March 2020), ahamkara (14th April 2020), animovado (15th March 2020), Baby Steps (11th March 2020), Bill Ryan (11th March 2020), Cardillac (11th March 2020), DeeMetrios (13th March 2020), happyuk (12th March 2020), Mari (11th March 2020), meeradas (11th March 2020), Melinda (11th March 2020), Michi (11th March 2020), RogeRio (11th March 2020), Sadieblue (12th March 2020), Satori (11th March 2020), silvanelf (14th March 2020), Tarazeda (14th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), toppy (11th March 2020), wegge (15th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Brazil Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th June 2019
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Language
    Portuguese
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    1,854
    Thanked 1,973 times in 376 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Quote Posted by Reinhard (here)
    So: what are those tests measuring? What is the scientific basis?
    "follow" the test Kits .. from CDC faq, you can see ...

    CDC provides the test kits for public health laboratories (PHLs) to perform real-time RT-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (the virus that causes COVID-19) in respiratory specimens.

    These Test Kits are available through the International Reagent Resource (IRR)

    ----

    if you make a research on Catalog of IRR to "corona virus", you'll find

    Quote .
    FR-302 - Human Coronavirus, Strain OC43 (ATCC® VR-1558™) - Non-Influenza Virus

    FR-303 - Human Coronavirus, Strain 229E (ATCC® VR-740™) - Non-Influenza Virus

    FR-304 - Human Coronavirus, Strain NL63 - Non-Influenza Virus

    ---

    FR-605 - Genomic RNA from Human Coronavirus, Strain OC43 (ATCC® VR-1558™) - Genetic Materials

    FR-606 - Genomic RNA from Human Coronavirus, Strain 229E (ATCC® VR-740™) - Genetic Materials

    FR-804 - Genomic RNA from Human Coronavirus, Strain NL63 - Genetic Materials
    Last edited by RogeRio; 13th March 2020 at 09:51.

  4. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to RogeRio For This Post:

    ahamkara (14th April 2020), Bill Ryan (11th March 2020), DeeMetrios (13th March 2020), Mari (12th March 2020), Pam (13th March 2020), Reinhard (12th March 2020), Sadieblue (12th March 2020), silvanelf (19th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Germany Avalon Member
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    SW Germany
    Age
    65
    Posts
    1,753
    Thanks
    2,367
    Thanked 9,022 times in 1,648 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Hi Reinhard,

    there are no 100% reliable tests in the medical industry; one must always take human error into account among many other things-

    I was this afternoon in Mulhouse in the Alsace and the entire core of the city was practically empty due to fear of the Corona Virus-

    the Alsace has been declared a danger zone but not yet my area in Freiburg-

    lass es Dir gut gehen und bleib gesund!

    Larry :-)

  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Cardillac For This Post:

    ahamkara (14th April 2020), Bill Ryan (11th March 2020), DeeMetrios (13th March 2020), Pam (13th March 2020), Reinhard (12th March 2020), Sadieblue (12th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), wegge (15th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020)

  7. Link to Post #4
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    279
    Thanks
    629
    Thanked 1,213 times in 234 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Hello

    I firmly stand with the highly revered and respected Mr. Rapporport on this one. In my medical training I remember hearing the exact same information regarding viral testing that jon has been vehemently articulating over the last several years.

    WOW - I just heard that the NBA has suspended all play indefinitely . Damn I did not see that coming ….http://projectavalon.net/forum4/imag...20Facepalm.gif

    It appears the cabal has just implemented a full court press on their plan... So, who will be first in line for that mandatory vaccine....

    I cannot wait to see what the reactions are followed buy the solutions they will propose and attempt to install....

    May we all have the tomorrow we deserve...


    Wishing you the best

    Luke
    Last edited by Luke Holiday; 12th March 2020 at 08:31.

  8. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    ahamkara (14th April 2020), Arcturian108 (13th March 2020), Bill Ryan (12th March 2020), DeeMetrios (13th March 2020), happyuk (12th March 2020), Mari (12th March 2020), Pam (13th March 2020), Reinhard (12th March 2020), Sadieblue (12th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020)

  9. Link to Post #5
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    279
    Thanks
    629
    Thanked 1,213 times in 234 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Corona virus deaths worldwide = 4000 World population 7.6 billion

    Corona virus deaths in the United states = 30 US population = 330 million

    (current CDC numbers as afternoon 3/12/20)

    influenza virus deaths per year 12,000 – 79,000 deaths annually since 2010. source Wikipedia/ CDC (Influenza deaths worldwide this year = 18,000)
    -


    Now lets look at the percentages:

    1. Percentage of people who have died in the US from CV = .000009 % of the US population

    2. Percentage of the population who have died worldwide from the CV =.0005% of the worldwide population


    In the words of the great NBA legend Allen Iverson: What are we talkin 'bout here....

    Part of the definition of epidemic/pandemic is "involving large numbers of people"

    By definition this IS NOT AN EPIDEMIC OR PANDEMIC nor has it proven to be as virulent as the common flu virus!!!!


    So, now lets begin to discuss what is really going on, what the future holds and how we can all best get through this!!!

    Be well
    Last edited by Luke Holiday; 13th March 2020 at 04:29.

  10. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (13th March 2020), Bill Ryan (13th March 2020), DeeMetrios (13th March 2020), greybeard (12th April 2020), Pam (13th March 2020), Reinhard (13th March 2020), Tarazeda (14th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020), yelik (14th March 2020)

  11. Link to Post #6
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    23,604
    Thanks
    89,748
    Thanked 298,958 times in 22,095 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Quote Posted by Luke Holiday (here)
    Corona virus deaths worldwide = 4000 World population 7.6 billion

    Corona virus deaths in the United states = 30 US population = 330 million

    (current CDC numbers as afternoon 3/12/20)

    influenza virus deaths per year 12,000 – 79,000 deaths annually since 2010. source Wikipedia/ CDC (Influenza deaths worldwide this year = 18,000)
    -


    Now lets look at the percentages:

    1. Percentage of people who have died in the US from CV = .000009 % of the US population

    2. Percentage of the population who have died worldwide from the CV =.0005% of the worldwide population


    In the words of the great NBA legend Allen Iverson: What are we talkin 'bout here....

    Part of the definition of epidemic/pandemic is "involving large numbers of people"

    By definition this IS NOT AN EPIDEMIC OR PANDEMIC nor has it proven to be as virulent as the common flu virus!!!!



    I'm going to post this screenshot (© Chris Martenson), with my own added emphasis, each time you post something unhelpful like this — until you're able to make the personal adjustment steps to realize what's really happening here, and what will happen soon.

  12. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (13th March 2020), Franny (14th March 2020), Luke Holiday (14th March 2020), NewParadigmGuy (13th April 2020), onevoice (13th March 2020), Pam (13th March 2020), Reinhard (13th March 2020), silvanelf (19th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020), yelik (14th March 2020), Yoda (13th March 2020)

  13. Link to Post #7
    United States Avalon Member DSKlausler's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th May 2016
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 134 times in 23 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    CDC and WHO: is it not common knowledge that these are completely compromised arms of Big Pharma? As such, you cannot trust ANYTHING they say or do.
    Anything is possible with the proper training.

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DSKlausler For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (13th March 2020), Franny (14th March 2020), Luke Holiday (13th March 2020), Pam (13th March 2020), Reinhard (13th March 2020), silvanelf (19th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020)

  15. Link to Post #8
    Aaland Avalon Member Agape's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th March 2010
    Posts
    4,707
    Thanks
    11,382
    Thanked 19,848 times in 3,754 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Sorry I’ve closed couple of good research pages on the topic last night due to bad weather.

    These virological test are getting more refined so more reliable than any previous virological tests. However, according to latest observations of epidemiologists working “in the field” it may take up to two weeks for some individuals to develop antibodies against the virus.
    Some people develop very low immune response or perhaps, fall right under measurable drop line even then they are still carriers and potential transmitters of viruses.

    The coronavirus binds to cell walls, talking of soft and easy to penetrate epithelial cells in the fore front that is nasal and breathing tubes using RNA lipoprotein based enzyme the reverse-transcriptase that binds to interleukin receptors in the cell wall.
    The coronavirus offers a deceitful information to the cell wall that looks like “tasty fat” for example but instead it’s an invading RNA.
    The trick of good immunity system is too recognise “an alien invader” to the body and not to mistake it for “food”.

    Once your body inspects and analyses the “alien agent” for sufficient amount of time it usually triggers sufficient immune response towards it and that’s a measurable response.

    Remind us again that we carry thousands of viral and bacterial strands in our bodies at all times( depending where we have moved and travelled around the globe) and many people still carry part of the initial microbiome donated by their mothers at birth and other relatives who looked after them.
    ( unless you grew up with wolves and then your microbiome would be part of theirs to huge degree).

    It’s been so taught previously that we all carry at least one copy of even the most dangerous microbes in our bodies( think anthrax) but are harmless to us in small numbers usually coinhabiting some other harmless bacterial family,
    their presence in our environments is extremely diluted so mostly harmless to us.

    People are being admitted to hospitals based on the acuteness of symptoms rather than these tests so the amount of “infected population” out there is logically times bigger than numbers confirmed.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Agape For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (13th March 2020), Pam (13th March 2020), Reinhard (13th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Germany Avalon Member Reinhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Location
    Munich
    Age
    70
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    28,361
    Thanked 351 times in 82 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    .... I should have known.....complex topics are hard to keep on track ............

    Luke: thank you for putting the topic into a statistical perspective; the figures should be mentioned more often.
    Btw, As far as I remember one of the main aspects of the pandemic definition is the contagiousness (on an international basis)....seems like the WHO/CDC has changed this definition until even small numbers of 'infected' people could be considered an 'epidemic'.

    Bill: it's quite tempting to use Elizabeth Kübler Ross's "grief cycle" (how people cope with illness and dying) for any kind of awareness and acceptance of change like Martenson does -- I've done this repeatedly in my seminars myself. In our case, though, I think it's too simplistic to narrow the process down to a final acceptance of the inevitable.

    My intention with this thread is: no matter what the outcome of this round of panic is, we at Avalon, could use this SARS variant to derive the basic questions in a learning-process, somewhat parallel to the 'reality' development. ----- The next 'pandemic' will inevidently come -- probably in 2021 !!!

    Those basic questions could be:
    "How reliable are the COVID 19 tests" --- i.e. "What's so new about this 'new' Coronavirus?" ---- "How does it differ from a common flu?"
    "How does the 'virus' "jump" human-to-human?" --- resp. "(How) is it mutating?"
    "Are there proofs / or at least indications about a possible bio-weapon manipulation?" ---- in an era of CRIPR that seems very well be possible....
    "How relevant is the "psycho-weapon" aspect --- i.e. stoking fears via 'experts', politicians, media .... all with their own agenda and in the know how to use their influence?"

    Well, well...............questions, questions................

    Reinhard



    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Luke Holiday (here)
    Corona virus deaths worldwide = 4000 World population 7.6 billion

    Corona virus deaths in the United states = 30 US population = 330 million

    (current CDC numbers as afternoon 3/12/20)

    influenza virus deaths per year 12,000 – 79,000 deaths annually since 2010. source Wikipedia/ CDC (Influenza deaths worldwide this year = 18,000)
    -


    Now lets look at the percentages:

    1. Percentage of people who have died in the US from CV = .000009 % of the US population

    2. Percentage of the population who have died worldwide from the CV =.0005% of the worldwide population


    In the words of the great NBA legend Allen Iverson: What are we talkin 'bout here....

    Part of the definition of epidemic/pandemic is "involving large numbers of people"

    By definition this IS NOT AN EPIDEMIC OR PANDEMIC nor has it proven to be as virulent as the common flu virus!!!!



    I'm going to post this screenshot (© Chris Martenson), with my own added emphasis, each time you post something unhelpful like this — until you're able to make the personal adjustment steps to realize what's really happening here, and what will happen soon.
    The very moment the caterpillar thought the world would end, it turned into a butterfly.
    Laotse

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Reinhard For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (13th March 2020), Luke Holiday (13th March 2020), Pam (13th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020)

  19. Link to Post #10
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    279
    Thanks
    629
    Thanked 1,213 times in 234 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Luke Holiday (here)
    Corona virus deaths worldwide = 4000 World population 7.6 billion

    Corona virus deaths in the United states = 30 US population = 330 million

    (current CDC numbers as afternoon 3/12/20)

    influenza virus deaths per year 12,000 – 79,000 deaths annually since 2010. source Wikipedia/ CDC (Influenza deaths worldwide this year = 18,000)
    -


    Now lets look at the percentages:

    1. Percentage of people who have died in the US from CV = .000009 % of the US population

    2. Percentage of the population who have died worldwide from the CV =.0005% of the worldwide population


    In the words of the great NBA legend Allen Iverson: What are we talkin 'bout here....

    Part of the definition of epidemic/pandemic is "involving large numbers of people"

    By definition this IS NOT AN EPIDEMIC OR PANDEMIC nor has it proven to be as virulent as the common flu virus!!!!



    I'm going to post this screenshot (© Chris Martenson), with my own added emphasis, each time you post something unhelpful like this — until you're able to make the personal adjustment steps to realize what's really happening here, and what will happen soon.

    Hello Bill


    THank you for the strong rebuttal to the post as it I believe it will allow myself and others to gain greater clarity on this most important issue.


    In reply I would like to make the following points and get your feedback


    .1. The intention of the post was to highlight a point of view being expressed by the likes of Jon Rappoport, Sean Hannity, and Gerald Celente. This idea motivated me to look at the data/ fact check using the definintion of a pandemic and CDC data. I was somewhat surprised by what I found.

    2. Bill in your Post you inferred that I was implying that the CV is the flu - I was not.

    3. Bill if I may ask for my own (and maybe other's) clarity) what is it about the information presented that you have found wrong , offensive or not helpful? ( - to me it appears as if the numbers are very clear regarding the term pandemic/epidemic).

    4. In hindsight perhaps I could left out the AI reference



    -Again thank you for the rebuttal and the chance to "pump the brakes and look at this most important issue a little closer" and gain greater clarity

    Blessings Luke
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 13th March 2020 at 19:03. Reason: fixed quote formatting

  20. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (13th March 2020), Bill Ryan (13th March 2020), ByTheNorthernSea (14th March 2020), greybeard (12th April 2020), Reinhard (15th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Germany Avalon Member Reinhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Location
    Munich
    Age
    70
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    28,361
    Thanked 351 times in 82 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Agape: thank you for that clear input........helps even an non-expert like myself to understand what we are dealing with!

    Reinhard



    Quote Posted by Agape (here)
    Sorry I’ve closed couple of good research pages on the topic last night due to bad weather.

    These virological test are getting more refined so more reliable than any previous virological tests. However, according to latest observations of epidemiologists working “in the field” it may take up to two weeks for some individuals to develop antibodies against the virus.
    Some people develop very low immune response or perhaps, fall right under measurable drop line even then they are still carriers and potential transmitters of viruses.

    The coronavirus binds to cell walls, talking of soft and easy to penetrate epithelial cells in the fore front that is nasal and breathing tubes using RNA lipoprotein based enzyme the reverse-transcriptase that binds to interleukin receptors in the cell wall.
    The coronavirus offers a deceitful information to the cell wall that looks like “tasty fat” for example but instead it’s an invading RNA.
    The trick of good immunity system is too recognise “an alien invader” to the body and not to mistake it for “food”.

    Once your body inspects and analyses the “alien agent” for sufficient amount of time it usually triggers sufficient immune response towards it and that’s a measurable response.

    Remind us again that we carry thousands of viral and bacterial strands in our bodies at all times( depending where we have moved and travelled around the globe) and many people still carry part of the initial microbiome donated by their mothers at birth and other relatives who looked after them.
    ( unless you grew up with wolves and then your microbiome would be part of theirs to huge degree).

    It’s been so taught previously that we all carry at least one copy of even the most dangerous microbes in our bodies( think anthrax) but are harmless to us in small numbers usually coinhabiting some other harmless bacterial family,
    their presence in our environments is extremely diluted so mostly harmless to us.

    People are being admitted to hospitals based on the acuteness of symptoms rather than these tests so the amount of “infected population” out there is logically times bigger than numbers confirmed.
    The very moment the caterpillar thought the world would end, it turned into a butterfly.
    Laotse

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Reinhard For This Post:

    Agape (13th March 2020), Bill Ryan (13th March 2020), Luke Holiday (13th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020), wondering (12th April 2020)

  23. Link to Post #12
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    279
    Thanks
    629
    Thanked 1,213 times in 234 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Luke: thank you for putting the topic into a statistical perspective; the figures should be mentioned more often.
    Btw, As far as I remember one of the main aspects of the pandemic definition is the contagiousness (on an international basis)....seems like the WHO/CDC has changed this definition until even small numbers of 'infected' people could be considered an 'epidemic'.


    Yes I think it would helpful if CDC would clarity/quantify "contagiousness" say as"
    1. % of population infected/affected
    2. rate of spread of dz

    Major thanks for the clarification on this thread as these are crucial questions to have answers for and gain clarity on as we move forward


    BLessings luke
    Last edited by Luke Holiday; 13th March 2020 at 13:06.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (13th March 2020), Bill Ryan (13th March 2020), Reinhard (13th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,326
    Thanks
    5,593
    Thanked 8,928 times in 1,294 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    911 was real, but it was and is a cover for a larger, more nefarious global agenda. Covid19 is real, but it is a cover for a larger, more nefarious global agenda.

    Far too many people are buying into the panic triggers being put out there. Others perhaps are underestimating things. Use common sense and don’t panic.

    But, I do believe we should remain free to express our beliefs and opinions about this. No one is required to accept our views and opinions. That is a matter of choice and free will.

    I smell a big fat rat, but I can’t quite locate it: where it was, where it is, and where it’s going.

  26. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Agape (13th March 2020), Arcturian108 (13th March 2020), Bill Ryan (13th March 2020), ByTheNorthernSea (14th March 2020), DeDukshyn (13th March 2020), Franny (14th March 2020), meeradas (15th March 2020), Reinhard (13th March 2020), Tintin (13th March 2020)

  27. Link to Post #14
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    279
    Thanks
    629
    Thanked 1,213 times in 234 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Hello Reinhard

    I Just received Jon Rappoport's latest article on the CV testing process which I believe is very apropos to this thread. In my opinion, Jon is the best when it comes to investigative journalism on the topics of virus's/vaccines/pandemics and he has been spot on in his daily coverage of the CV over the last month.

    Here is the article which can also be found on his website Nomorefakenews.com

    Coronavirus: how a rational CDC scientist would think, if one existed
    (To read about Jon's mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
    In a recent article, I explained why the diagnostic test for the coronavirus in a patient is worthless and unreliable. The implications of that fact are enormous.

    Here, I want to make further comments on fake science.

    A rational researcher, at the CDC, if one existed, would say, upon hearing of a possible outbreak in the city of Wuhan: "Let's see the proof that a new virus is responsible, is the causative agent."

    What kind of proof would he be asking for?

    First, he would want to know, "Do researchers there have an actual biological specimen of this new virus? Do they have the real thing?"

    And if the answer came back yes, he would reply, "We're sending in one of our Wuhan people so he can confirm that."

    But how would the confirmation work? You can't just lay a specimen of a virus on a table and shine a light on it. It's far too small to see.

    There is a traditional method of observation. It's called an electron microscope photograph (an EM). Certain established procedures exist for obtaining an EM from a patient's tissue sample. The CDC scientist would want to make sure the Chinese scientists had carried out this process correctly.

    He would say, "Let's have a look at the Chinese EM." He wants to confirm there are many identical particles of the new virus in the EM. Let's buck the odds and imagine he does confirm it. So far, so good.

    But there is more. And here is where the rubber meets the road and the failure factor is very high. I need to back up a bit to explain.

    When a clinical trial of a new drug is done (and here I'll make a gigantic leap and assume it's done correctly), is it carried out on one patient?

    Is the result of giving the drug to a single patient then extrapolated to mean everyone will react the way this one person did? Of course not. That would be absurd. In a clinical trial, sooner or later, researchers are dealing with a large number of volunteers. A thousand or more.

    So, in the case of a new coronavirus, in China, the rational CDC scientist would say: "I want to see electron microscope photographs derived from five hundred patients who have been provisionally diagnosed with the new disease."

    I myself ask, where are these photographs? Where are the completely necessary photographs? Because the Chinese scientist would tell his CDC counterpart, "Oh, we didn't carry out the EM procedure on five hundred patients. We carried it out on one. Two. Maybe three. I'm not sure."

    At which point, this fantasy rational CDC scientist would blow his stack. He would say, "You're declaring a new epidemic based on two or three photographs from two or three patients??"

    Of course, I would need rock solid proof that, at the CDC, there is a rational scientist who would ask for EM pictures from five hundred patients, and explode if he couldn't find them because they were never done. Show me such a rational CDC scientist. Bring him forward. I want to interview him. I want to find out how he feels being ostracized by every other scientist at the CDC.

    Consider this likely scenario---which explains why researchers only did the EMs on two or three of the patients. If someone actually performed the electron microscope work on 500 patients diagnosed with the new disease, he would find some indication, in the photographs, of a coronavirus in maybe nine patients.

    At which point, in Wuhan, they would shrug and say, "Well, wow, that didn't work out. What a flop. Our hypothesis of a new disease based on a new coronavirus collapsed. We should have been able to see lots of the virus in the photos from ALL 500 patients, or at least the overwhelming percentage of the 500. And we didn't. Back to the drawing board. Let's see. What's the primary sign of the new disease? Pneumonia? Come to think of it, about 300,000 people in China die of pneumonia every year. How about we look at some studies on the air quality here in Wuhan? I think my colleague down the block has a pile of them. Let's walk over there. Anybody have a searchlight so we can see the street through the fog of pollution? Let me get my oxygen tank and breathing helmet."

    And that would be the end of that.

    Back in Atlanta, the rational CDC scientist would say to his colleagues, "That Chinese outbreak wasn't a virus. How about we spend the afternoon going through some of our own studies on vaccines? I know the fraud is rampant. Let's get it out in the open."

    Sure. Happens every day over at the CDC.

    Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe someone has done electron microscope photographs derived from 500 patients diagnosed with the new epidemic disease. LET'S SEE THE PHOTOS. SHOW THEM TO ME. We'll have a few non-conflicted experts analyze them.

    Otherwise, don't talk about science. There is no science going on.

    Talk about fakery. And liability. And prison.


    Blessings Luke
    Last edited by Luke Holiday; 14th March 2020 at 03:01.

  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    anandacate (16th March 2020), Bill Ryan (15th March 2020), onawah (14th March 2020), pueblo (12th April 2020), Reinhard (15th March 2020), Tarazeda (14th March 2020)

  29. Link to Post #15
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    16th April 2019
    Posts
    49
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 252 times in 46 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Part of the confusion that I have read is that the virus has mutated. L and S forms. What does the test evaluate for?

    A simple throat swab and a quick RIA test? Hmmmm. Looks like a good way to gather lots of DNA samples at the same time. Hmmmm

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Floating For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (15th March 2020), Luke Holiday (14th March 2020), Reinhard (15th March 2020)

  31. Link to Post #16
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    23,604
    Thanks
    89,748
    Thanked 298,958 times in 22,095 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    This short (6 minute) interview is very revealing and interesting about what the testing protocols were in China.


  32. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    anandacate (16th March 2020), kudzy (15th March 2020), magicmanx (15th March 2020), Reinhard (15th March 2020), Tintin (15th March 2020), wegge (15th March 2020), Yoda (15th March 2020)

  33. Link to Post #17
    Germany Avalon Member wegge's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    germany
    Age
    29
    Posts
    282
    Thanks
    1,367
    Thanked 1,132 times in 233 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    This short (6 minute) interview is very revealing and interesting about what the testing protocols were in China.

    Interesting procedure of the Chinese, but doesn’t dig into the PCR test, which seems to be their gold standard - does the test itself withstand a thorough test?

    To recap what Rappoport stated in one article what needs to be done is to TEST THE TEST:

    Take a hundred people that show a variety of symptoms, test them with the gold-standard PCR Test. Have independent researchers see how big the VIRUSLOAD (is that the correct term?) is. And then see if they can deduce from this virusload who is how sick. So for example the guy with the most virus in him, like 10 million (random number), should be waaaaay more sick than the guy only having a mere 500 thousand viri (is that the plural of virus) in him?

    So has a TEST FOR THE TEST ever been done and are there studies about it? Otherwise it’s a lot to do with correlation/causation, meaning just if something shows up with something at the same time (correlation) it’s not the (only) causative factor.

    Would be interesting for any branch of medicine, wouldn’t it?

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wegge For This Post:

    anandacate (16th March 2020), Bill Ryan (15th March 2020), Luke Holiday (15th March 2020), Reinhard (15th March 2020)

  35. Link to Post #18
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    279
    Thanks
    629
    Thanked 1,213 times in 234 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Quote Posted by wegge (here)
    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    This short (6 minute) interview is very revealing and interesting about what the testing protocols were in China.

    Interesting procedure of the Chinese, but doesn’t dig into the PCR test, which seems to be their gold standard - does the test itself withstand a thorough test?

    To recap what Rappoport stated in one article what needs to be done is to TEST THE TEST:

    Take a hundred people that show a variety of symptoms, test them with the gold-standard PCR Test. Have independent researchers see how big the VIRUSLOAD (is that the correct term?) is. And then see if they can deduce from this virusload who is how sick. So for example the guy with the most virus in him, like 10 million (random number), should be waaaaay more sick than the guy only having a mere 500 thousand viri (is that the plural of virus) in him?

    So has a TEST FOR THE TEST ever been done and are there studies about it? Otherwise it’s a lot to do with correlation/causation, meaning just if something shows up with something at the same time (correlation) it’s not the (only) causative factor.

    Would be interesting for any branch of medicine, wouldn’t it?
    Real quick: to piggie back onto what wegge has eloguently pointed out:

    The other major question mark regarding China's screening process is the CT scan looking for specific lung damage :

    Problem being- Wuhan is one of the most polluted cities in the world where people were already wearing protective masks prior to the CV.

    Jon points out that Wuhan - prior to CV - had an extremely high rate of Pneumonia/lung dz/upper respiratory distress compared to the rest of the world.

    So, what we want to see are studies which compare the cadavers lungs from China to those who have died in areas where the air is clean - and see what the correlation is.

    We also would want to know what percentage of those infected with CV from clean air areas had dx'ed lung issues prior to CV and compare those numbers the number CV cases that not have prior dx'ed lung issues.

    Lastly we would want to know the extent of lung damage in the those that have died in clear air areas compared to Wuhan?

    Blessings Luke
    Last edited by Luke Holiday; 16th March 2020 at 00:59.

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    anandacate (16th March 2020), Bill Ryan (15th March 2020), Reinhard (15th March 2020)

  37. Link to Post #19
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    279
    Thanks
    629
    Thanked 1,213 times in 234 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    Quote Posted by wegge (here)
    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    This short (6 minute) interview is very revealing and interesting about what the testing protocols were in China.

    Interesting procedure of the Chinese, but doesn’t dig into the PCR test, which seems to be their gold standard - does the test itself withstand a thorough test?

    To recap what Rappoport stated in one article what needs to be done is to TEST THE TEST:
    [I]
    Take a hundred people that show a variety of symptoms, test them with the gold-standard PCR Test. Have independent researchers see how big the VIRUSLOAD (is that the correct term?) is. And then see if they can deduce from this virusload who is how sick. So for example the guy with the most virus in him, like 10 million (random number), should be waaaaay more sick than the guy only having a mere 500 thousand viri (is that the plural of virus) in him?

    So has a TEST FOR THE TEST ever been done and are there studies about it? Otherwise it’s a lot to do with correlation/causation, meaning just if something shows up with something at the same time (correlation) it’s not the (only) causative factor.

    Would be interesting for any branch of medicine, wouldn’t it?


    Also real quick: I have been doing some fact checking on the PCR test and found the following study


    Ann Saudi Med. 2011 Jul-Aug; 31(4): 351–355.
    doi: 10.4103/0256-4947.83212
    PMCID: PMC3156509
    PMID: 21808109
    A validation study comparing the sensitivity and specificity of the new Dr. KSU H1N1 RT-PCR kit with real-time RT-PCR for diagnosing influenza A (H1N1)
    Abdulaziz A. BinSaeed,a,b Abdulaziz A. Al-Khedhairy,c Ahmed M. A. Mandil,b Shaffi A. Shaikh,a Riaz Qureshi,a Abdulaziz S. Al-Khattaf,d Hanan A. Habib,d Awatif A. Alam,b Lubna A. Al-Ansary,a and Mohammed Al-Omrane


    : RESULTS:
    The outcomes of the two tests were highly correlated (kappa=0.85; P<.0001). The sensitivity and specificity of the new test were 99.11% and 83.78%, respectively. The sensitivity of the new test was affected only minimally (96%-100%) by patient characteristics and number of symptoms. On the other hand, the specificity of the new test varied depending on how soon patients were tested after onset of symptoms (100% specificity when swabs were taken on the first day of the symptoms, decreasing to 75% when swabs were taken on or after the third day). The specificity of the new test also increased with increasing body temperature.

    CONCLUSION:
    The new test seems to provide a cost-effective alternative to real-time RT-PCR for diagnosing H1N1 influenza. However, further testing may be needed to verify the efficacy of the test in different settings and communities
    .




    The issue regarding the PCR test that Jon elucidates is proving that the virus found - did in fact cause the symptom complex for which the patient is presenting.

    With the massive levels of air pollution in Wuhan this is a huge issue.

    Luke
    Last edited by Luke Holiday; 16th March 2020 at 01:29.

  38. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    anandacate (16th March 2020), Bill Ryan (15th March 2020), Reinhard (15th March 2020), silvanelf (19th March 2020)

  39. Link to Post #20
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,076
    Thanks
    21,539
    Thanked 13,731 times in 2,055 posts

    Default Re: How reliable are the COVID-19 tests?

    A very quick anecdote from Wednesday evening last week - In keeping with the OP question; I'll backtrack and visit the posts above in a short while.

    A post work cider or two enjoyed at the local pub/bar: a chap who reasonably regularly pops in, who I hadn't seen in a while actually, is sitting on his smartphone. He's downloaded the NHS app, apparently, then announces that he's tested positive.

    Tested positive via an app which is sure to be asking totally ambiguous questions.

    Aside from the beyond eccentric lack of any cohesive clear plan, or, any particularly helpful information from the UK government, how reliable would that test be? I doubt very much that it would be at all. A test, via an app. Strewth.

    Name:  banging_head.gif
Views: 450
Size:  13.1 KB
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  40. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    anandacate (16th March 2020), Anka (15th March 2020), Luke Holiday (15th March 2020), Reinhard (15th March 2020), RogeRio (15th March 2020), silvanelf (19th March 2020), spade (13th April 2020), wegge (15th March 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts