💰tip ($0.75 in tips)
The PCR tests were a key component to enforcing lockdowns in 2020.Although the widely inaccurate test was never meant to diagnose disease, health bureaucrats deemed PCR tests the gold standard to detect COVID-19.And with the cycle threshold ramped up to a value of 38-40, it was inevitable that millions of people with no symptoms would test positive.Ridiculous testing requirements forced many healthy individuals to test weekly for the virus.And we quickly saw a rapid rise in COVID-19 cases that gave the health overlords the excuse to deem asymptomatic spread a threat.Asymptomatic spread was one of the key issues cited to convince people of lockdowns to “slow the spread.”Another peculiar thing happened with mass COVID-19 testing via PCR.The flu appeared to vanish out of thin air.Follow on Telegram @WeLoveTrumpNoahAfter 18 months of economic, social, and health destruction, the CDC admitted the gold standard test couldn’t distinguish between COVID-19 and the flu.The CDC will withdraw current PCR tests and recommends method that can differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. This might make it even clearer as to how the flu just disappeared at precisely the same point that another respiratory virus emerged with a similar death rate pic.twitter.com/jrMFFCyN7b— Andreas Vou (@AndreasVou89) July 27, 2021The CDC declared it will withdraw its request for PCR test use on an emergency basis on December 31, and strongly suggests labs adopt new tests capable of "differentiation" between COVID-19 and influenza.https://t.co/VjrynwIeBC — National File (@NationalFile) July 25, 2021Holy smokes. The CDC indirectly admits current PCR tests lack capability to differentiate between COVID-19 and standard influenza.Remember when the seasonal flu went poof last year? I think we finally have our explanation…🔻https://t.co/hZKKbLSzda pic.twitter.com/RZ2y1Ajmi8— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 28, 2021US CDC confirmed July 21 that the PCR test does not distinguish between SARS & influenza and it is withdrawing emergency use of PCR tests in USA from December 31 2021. Drosten’s meaningless test has caused more economic damage & suffering than any medical device in history. https://t.co/0gYDPFlXpx pic.twitter.com/QHzk8KIe0n— Professor Michael Northcott (@msnorthcott) July 24, 2021On July 21, CDC alerted US labs that it is withdrawing Emergency Use Authorization of PCR tests to detect infection of SARS-CoV-2. CDC recommends that labs transition to a different FDA authorized test as PCR tests cannot be used after Dec.31, 2021.#onpolihttps://t.co/MXWWpIP2B2— Roman Baber (@Roman_Baber) July 24, 2021Fox News had the scoop:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urged labs this week to stock clinics with kits that can test for both the coronavirus and the flu as the “influenza season” draws near.The CDC said Wednesday it will withdrawal its request for the “Emergency Use Authorization” of real-time diagnostic testing kits, which were used starting in February 2020 to detect signs of the coronavirus, by the end of the year.“CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives,” the agency said.The U.S. has reported more than 34.4 million cases of the coronavirus since the pandemic began in 2020 and more than 610,000 deaths.But while cases of COVID-19 soared nationwide, hospitalizations and deaths caused by influenza dropped.According to data released by the CDC earlier this month, influenza mortality rates were significantly lower throughout 2020 than previous years.There were 646 deaths relating to the flu among adults reported in 2020, whereas in 2019 the CDC estimated that between 24,000 and 62,000 people died from influenza-related illnesses.The CDC urged laboratories to “save both time and resources” by introducing kits that can determine and distinguish a positive test for the coronavirus and flu.National File also reported:Many skeptics have noted that, with the emergence of COVID-19, flu cases diminished at a level that strains credulity. While the CDC estimated that between 24,000 and 62,000 died of “influenza related illnesses” in 2019, the number shrunk by nearly 99% in 2020, to a modest 646 deaths. Many have pointed to overuse of the PCR tests, which are designed to detect incredibly small amounts of viruses, for this massive change.Others, perhaps more confusingly, say that while Americans did a poor job of social distancing, mask wearing, and hand sanitizing that was unable to prevent the spread of COVID-19, Americans also did a satisfactory job of social distancing, mask wearing, and hand sanitizing to prevent the spread of influenza viruses.As National File reported earlier this year, the inventor of the PCR test once said Anthony Fauci, 80-year-old the decades-long director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “doesn’t know anything” and is willing to lie on television. “Guys like Fauci get up there and start talking, you know, he doesn’t know anything really about anything and I’d say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there you’ll know it,” said PCR test inventor Kary Mullis.“He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he’s in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don’t know anything about what’s going on in the body. You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They’ve got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go. They change them when they want to. And they smugly, like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera,” Mullis added.Who wants to guess how many COVID-19 cases (and deaths) were actually influenza and simply misdiagnosed due to the PCR tests?
Comments 1 - 7 of 7
The Food & Drug Administration issued a class I recall for a defective COVID rapid test that had been the “benchmark” for testing in the United States. It continues an alarming trend of problems with COVID tests in the United States.“The FDA has classified the recall of this test as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall,” the government agency said. “The FDA also has issued a warning letter to Innova Medical Group, Inc.”Innova describes itself as “the world’s largest manufacturer of rapid antigen tests and leader in COVID-19 testing solutions globally.” The FDA states the reasons for the COVID test recall:“Innova Medical Group is recalling its SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. Labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests. The performance characteristics of the test have not been adequately established, presenting a risk of false results.”False-negative results may lead to delayed diagnosis or inappropriate treatment of SARS-CoV-2, which may cause patient harm including serious illness and death. False-negative results can also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including when presumed negative patients are grouped into cohorts in health care, long-term care, and other facilities based on false test results.False-positive results could lead to a delay in the correct diagnosis and the initiation of an appropriate treatment for the actual cause of patient illness, which could be another life-threatening disease that is not SARS-CoV-2. False-positive results could also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when presumed positive patients are grouped into cohorts based on false test results.“On April 23, 2021, Innova Medical Group sent all affected device users an Urgent Medical Device Recall letter,” the FDA said. “The letter provided the following information”:Do not use these tests to screen for or diagnose COVID-19.Identify and remove all affected tests from inventory.Either destroy the tests by placing them in the trash or return the tests using the FedEx return label that was included with the letter Innova sent to its customers.Complete and return the form Innova sent to its customers, indicating the number of destroyed or returned tests.The CDC in June issued an alert for testing laboratories to stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.“Innova Medical Group is recalling its SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. Labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests,” the CDC stated. “The performance characteristics of the test have not been adequately established, presenting a risk of false results.”A number of COVID testing experts reacted to the recall of the Innova rapid tests.“The Food and Drug Administration issued its STOP notice on Innova’s lateral flow antigen tests in USA on 10th June, by coincidence one day after a Royal Statistical Society (RSS) Working Group had issued its report on diagnostic tests which made 22 recommendations – 10 on study-design, six for regulators and six on transparency,” Professor Sheila Bird of the University of Cambridge remarked.“The FDA explain that they have withdrawn the Innova test for four main reasons: (a) distribution of the test in the US without approval; (b) erroneous claims on product leaflets; (c) concerns about the reliability of the evidence; and (d) failure to implement appropriate quality assurance processes to ensure that only inspected and approved devices are distributed,” Professor Jon Deeks of the University of Birmingham remarked. “The FDA state that the decision is informed by inspection visits to the distribution sites in the US. Innova have responded stating that they have already or are fixing the issues which concerned the FDA and will reapply for approval.”It is not the only concerning news on the COVID testing front. Last week, the CDC urged laboratories to switch over to a “multiplexed method” that “can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.”“Visit the FDA website for a list of authorized COVID-19 diagnostic methods,” the CDC stated. “For a summary of the performance of FDA-authorized molecular methods with an FDA reference panel, visit this page.”“In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test,” the agency continued. “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing.”The CDC guidance raises questions about the current laboratory testing regime’s ability to quickly and accurately differentiate between COVID-19 and the seasonal flu. In April, Scientific American commented on reports there was “just no flu circulating.” It attempted to explain the anomaly in terms of lower ‘positivity rates.’“The U.S. saw about 700 deaths from influenza during the 2020–2021 season,” Scientific American said. “In comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there were approximately 22,000 U.S. deaths in the prior season and 34,000 deaths two seasons ago.”But perhaps most disturbingly, the CDC has a history of getting it wrong on COVID testing. In November 2020, NPR reported that a CDC internal review knew early on in the pandemic that COVID tests had high failure rates, but they were released anyway.“On Feb. 6, a scientist in a small infectious disease lab on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention campus in Atlanta was putting a coronavirus test kit through its final paces,” NPR reported. “The lab designed and built the diagnostic test in record time, and the little vials that contained necessary reagents to identify the virus were boxed up and ready to go. But NPR has learned the results of that final quality control test suggested something troubling — it said the kit could fail 33% of the time.”Remarkably, the early COVID test was modeled on influenza tests.“Lindstrom, who led the respiratory disease lab, had invented diagnostic tests in the past,” NPR reported. “Before he went to the infectious diseases lab, he was running a different CDC lab, one that focused on influenza.”“When he was there, he had helped create the diagnostic tests that were used to identify H1N1 in patients, and there were no issues with the test,” the report continued. “The FDA quickly approved the kits and sent them to labs across the country. Within days, the same kits were dispatched around the world.”“The effort was considered a triumph for the CDC, and Lindstrom was viewed internally as the guy who made it happen,” the report added.“The influenza lab, however, had an infrastructure and systematic way of responding to flu outbreaks, and because of that Lindstrom and his team just had to do the science, one official said. The infrastructure was already there to help. COVID-19 was different,” NPR went on. “When Lindstrom first built the test at the infectious disease lab, for instance, he didn’t have any human sample of the virus, so it had to be manufactured.”“What’s more, officials say, Lindstrom built the coronavirus test the same way he would have built one for influenza,” the report notes. “It was, after all, what he knew best. The problem was, the coronavirus had more in common with SARS or MERS — respiratory diseases that hit the Middle East and Asia in 2002 and 2012 — than something like H1N1.”“The CDC declined to make Lindstrom or anyone else available for an interview and declined to discuss the unreleased internal review,” NPR added.
I'm still wondering what tests they used when they calculated the efficacy of the vaccines.