Test for past infection

How false positives occur

Lagacé-Wiens says four false positives have been recorded in Manitoba to date.

«It is in a way bad luck, and it’s a fact of just the number of samples that we’re having to process in these automated instruments,» he said.

Across Canada, health workers use what’s called «reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction» (PCR) testing to confirm cases of COVID-19. In several places, they’re also used to confirm when someone is recovered.

The tests evaluate a sample, taken with a swab of cells at the back of the nose and throat, for trace amounts of the coronavirus’s RNA.

This can be done one at a time, as with the GeneXpert technology used to double-verify presumptive cases in Nunavut, or in lab-built robotic testing machines, which can process hundreds of tests at a time.

In lab-built machines, robotic instruments extract pieces of hundreds of different samples and feed them into a PCR test. That’s where cross-contamination can happen.

A technician uses the Gene Xpert testing machine at Qikiqtani General Hospital in Iqaluit. The machine is now used to provide preliminary COVID-19 test results in the territory, before they are confirmed by southern labs. (CBC)

«Every now and again, even though it’s sort of a very precise robotic instrument … there can be very slight traces of carryover from sample to sample,» Lagacé-Wiens explained. «That’s where most of these false positives probably come from.»

Lagacé-Wiens said this most often happens when there is a very strong sample next to a negative one. The result is usually a very weak positive.

«If it’s a very, very weak positive, that’s usually your first hint that it merits rechecking. Another is that if a sample right beside it is strongly positive,» he said.

«Usually, when labs see that, they’ll go back to the original sample and they’ll re-test it,» he said.

Carrying ‘traces’ of COVID-19

There’s another small group of people who might be carrying traces of the virus in their system months after having the illness — or those carrying without knowing they actually had the illness.

«Someone has had the infection, so we detect the RNA (genetic material of the virus) but clinically, they are well,» virologist Bill Rawlinson said.

«Then they are not infectious, they can’t transmit and they may have been infected three or four months before.»

Experts stressed Australians should be confident that COVID-19 test results were accurate, particularly with the low level of community transmission.

«When we are only getting a dozen or so positive tests, they tend to look at those results more scrupulously and that’s what we are doing in Australia ,» Professor Mackay said.

A less likely reason for a false positive test is contamination when the COVID-19 sample is collected.

UNSW virologist Professor Bill Rawlinson said contamination during a sample was relatively uncommon.

«Our lab and other labs are doing thousands and thousands of tests every day and we are only seeing a couple of false positives.

«It’s really a rare event,» he said.

Advances in testing technology also meant samples were less likely to be contaminated in the lab.

What’s known as a P-C-R test can now be done without having to open up the sample and exposing it to any genetic material which might be present.

«Our labs are good, and have good processes, so you won’t see many false positives.

«We are doing really well,» Professor Mackay said.

Percent Positive and Test Rate of Molecular Testing by ZIP Code

These data show the percent of people given a molecular test who tested positive,
by ZIP code, for
the
most recent seven days of available data. The borough comparison charts include
data
by
ZIP code from the past three months.

The data also show the rate of people given a molecular test during the most
recent seven days. A
neighborhood is considered to have adequate testing when at least 260 residents
per
100,000 have been tested in the past week. This metric of adequate testing may
change depending on future testing data.

Map

Table

By
borough

New people positive does not include people who previously
tested positive. All data are incomplete. Data will be backfilled as new
data
are reported.
Get
the data

Taking the government to court

It is clear that the wars over PCR tests are hotting up, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. A new organisation in the UK, calling itself PCR Claims, has been set up to challenge in the courts the British government’s handling of PCR testing for Covid-19. 

The organisation describes itself as a pro bono network of lawyers, life scientists, and business advisers led by Jo Rogers, a lawyer who runs Navistar Legal. 

Rogers told RT.com: “The intention is to expose the controversy of the inappropriate use of PCR in the context of pillar 2 community testing and private sector lighthouse labs. 

“PCR was not designed for mass testing because of the sensitivity and risk of contamination. There are serious flaws in many of the protocols employed, which were hurriedly put together, some without peer review. The operational false positive rate is unknown and therefore every positive test could be false, unless accompanied by clinical examination.” 

As an example of errors with PCR, the group points to a recent case from Cambridge University. “Our first priority is to gather evidence of the harms from restrictions to life whose policies were driven by PCR test modelling and/or ‘case’ results,” Rogers said. “We believe the cases are a pseudo epidemic, as seen in other places around the world using PCR testing. 

Also on rt.com
A global team of experts has found 10 FATAL FLAWS in the main test for Covid and is demanding it’s urgently axed. As they should

“Legal action is progressing and further instances will follow as we receive the evidence of harms. The gathering of that evidence is ongoing nationwide, as well as our raising awareness of errors and negligence.» 

As someone who shares their deep concerns over these PCR tests, this is good news. At last, there is somewhere to go for expert legal counsel on the government’s persecution of free-born citizens. And thank heavens also for the stellar work of the entire peer review team for holding this bad science to account. If indeed it is retracted, it will be a major victory for those of us who can see through what Dr Mike Yeadon, one of the paper’s debunkers, rightly calls a “false positive pseudo-epidemic.”

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Questions and answers

Is there an over-the-counter COVID-19 test I can take at home?

Yes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an over-the-counter fully at-home diagnostic test for COVID-19. The test is authorized for individuals two years of age or older, including those not showing symptoms.

The home test is a rapid, lateral flow antigen test, a type of test that runs a liquid sample along a surface with reactive molecules. The FDA allows it to be sold in places like drug stores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes. 

Individuals with positive results should:

• Self-isolate
• Seek additional care from their health care provider

Individuals who test negative and experience COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their health care provider. It is possible to get a negative test result and still be infected with coronavirus.

For more information, see the FDA news release.

Is there a prescription COVID-19 test I can take at home?

Yes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an at-home COVID-19 diagnostic self-test. The authorization is for home use with self-collected nasal swab samples in individuals aged 14 and older. This test is currently authorized for prescription use only. 

The test works by swirling the self-collected sample swab in a vial that is then placed in the test unit. In 30 minutes or less, the results can be read directly from the test unit’s light-up display. 

Individuals with positive results should:

• Self-isolate
• Seek additional care from their health care provider

Individuals who test negative and experience COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their health care provider. It is possible to get a negative test result and still be infected with coronavirus.

For more information, see the FDA news release.

How long does it take for coronavirus test results to come back?

Turnaround time for coronavirus test results is usually less than two days. Approximately two-thirds are returned within a day and more than 85% are available within two days.

This turnaround time includes shipping time. So for labs that process home testing kits, turnaround time may depend on when an individual mails back their kit.

If you haven’t received your test results and it’s been several days, contact your healthcare provider, testing service, or local health department.Read more at California’s COVID-19 Testing Task Force.

Who should get tested for coronavirus?

You should get tested if you:

• Had with anyone who has tested positive for COVID-19
• Have COVID-19 symptoms
• Get a call from a contact tracer
• Are at high risk

If you think you may have been exposed, call your doctor.

When can I be around other people after I tested positive for COVID-19 but had no symptoms?

If you continue to have no symptoms, you can be with others after 10 days have passed since your test.The CDC has detailed recommendations for people who test positive but have no symptoms.

You should self-isolate from others in your household who have not tested positive. Sleep and stay in a separate room from them, and use a separate bathroom, if possible. Multiple infected people in the same household can use the same room for isolation.

Members of your household should get tested right away. They should quarantine for at least 14 days. Symptoms can develop even after testing negative within 14 days after exposure. Multiple people in the same household should not quarantine in the same room, since some may be infected.

Accuracy of antibody tests

Accuracy is a measure of how well the tests detect previous SARS-CoV-2 infections, and not a direct measure of immunity to future infections. The accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests is measured by comparing the test results with a gold standard: usually viral RNA detection by PCR testing at the time of symptoms. A limitation of this approach is the sensitivity in PCR testing (which may be as low as 70%).

A Cochrane review of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing included 57 publications on 54 cohort studies with 15 976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Measures of diagnostic accuracy varied depending on the timing of the tests (). The maximum sensitivity for combined IgG or IgM tests was 96% at days 22-35 after symptom onset. For IgG alone the maximum sensitivity was 88.2% at days 15-21 after symptom onset. Summary specificities were provided in 35 out of 54 studies and exceeded 98% for all types of antibody test.

Table 1

Sensitivity and specificity by time since symptom onset6

View this table:

A statistical method of seeking a second opinion

Bayes’ theorem (alternatively Bayes’ law or Bayes’ rule) has been called the most powerful rule of probability and statistics. It describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event.

Bayes’ rule formula

It is a powerful law of probability that brings in the concept of ‘subjectivity’ or ‘the degree of belief’ into the cold, hard statistical modeling. It lets us begin with a hypothesis and a certain degree of belief in that hypothesis, based on domain expertise or prior knowledge. Thereafter, we gather data and update our initial beliefs. If the data support the hypothesis then the probability goes up, if it does not match, then probability goes down.

In the domain of medical testing, this continuous update methodology means, we are never satisfied with one set of tests. We can calculate the probability of a person being infected from the test data, repeat the test again, feed the result from the previous test to the same formula again, and update our probability.

This is just like seeing a second (or a third) opinion from a doctor about the diagnosis of a disease.

All tests have limitations

Among the shortfalls of diagnostic testing is the possibility of false negatives (failing to detect a condition when it’s present) and false positives (detecting a condition when it’s absent).

It’s easy to see why false negatives can be a problem – we lose the benefits of early intervention.

But false positives can also cause harm, including unnecessary treatment. This is why positive screening tests are often followed up with a second, different test to confirm a diagnosis.

Examples include further imaging and possibly biopsy following a positive mammogram for breast cancer, or colonoscopy following positive screening for colon cancer.

Read more:
As restrictions ease, here are 5 crucial ways for Australia to stay safely on top of COVID-19

Call up Guinness World Records

One of the 10 fatal flaws in the original Corman-Drosten paper was that it was unclear whether it had ever been subjected to proper peer review – before, that is, the panel of experts took it upon themselves to do so. The paper had been submitted on January 22 and published the very next day. Peer review, when it takes place, is normally a long, drawn out process with plenty of back-and-forth, even when it is being rushed as much as possible. That it could be done in a single day beggars belief.

But that is what the authors are asking us to believe, as they are still claiming that their article was «peer-reviewed by two experts on whose recommendation the decision to publish was made.’’ Eurosurveillance may want to consider submitting this feat to Guinness World Records as the fastest peer review of all time  – it may not be too late to get into the 2021 edition.

Also on rt.com
Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what do the MSM do? They ignore it

Types of tests

Two types of COVID-19 tests are available: Diagnostic tests and antibody tests.

A diagnostic test can show if you have an active coronavirus infection. Currently there are two types of diagnostic tests: viral PCR tests that detect the virus’s genetic material, and antigen tests that detect specific proteins on the surface of the virus. Testing sites listed on this page use viral PCR tests.

Antigen tests usually provide results faster than viral PCR tests at lower cost, but have a higher chance of missing an active infection.  Antigen tests are used on people suspected of having COVID-19 within 5-12 days of symptoms appearing.

Antibody tests detect past infections. They can determine if you are a good candidate to donate blood plasma. It can take 1-3 weeks after infection for your body to make antibodies.

You can find locations for both viral PCR and antibody tests on the COVID-19 Testing Sites in California map.

Development of Antibodies and Immunity

Nearly all immune-competent individuals will develop an immune response following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Like infections with other pathogens, SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits development of IgM and IgG antibodies, which are the most useful for assessing antibody response because little is known about IgA response in the blood.

Antibodies in some persons can be detected within the first week of illness onset. In SARS-CoV-2 infections, IgM and IgG antibodies can arise nearly simultaneously in serum within 2 to 3 weeks after illness onset. Thus, detection of IgM without IgG is uncommon. How long IgM and IgG antibodies remain detectable following infection is not known. It is also important to note that some persons do not develop detectable IgG or IgM antibodies following infection. Thus, the absence of detectable IgM or IgG antibodies does not necessarily rule out that they could have previously been infected.

In addition, development of neutralizing antibodies can also be assessed. Neutralizing antibodies inhibit viral replication in vitro, and as with many infectious diseases, their presence correlates with immunity to future infection, at least temporarily.

Recurrence of COVID-19 illness appears to be very uncommon, suggesting that the presence of antibodies could indicate at least short-term immunity to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Consistent with this observation, experimental primary infection in primates and subsequent development of antibodies resulted in protection from reinfection after the primates were rechallenged. Additionally, antibody development in humans correlates with a marked decrease in viral load in the respiratory tract. Taken together, these observations suggest that the presence of antibodies may decrease a person’s infectiousness and offer some level of protection from reinfection. However, it remains uncertain to what degree and for how long individuals with antibodies (neutralizing or total) are protected against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or what concentration of antibodies may be needed to provide such protection.

How to get tested

California has partnered with Verily and OptumServe to provide free, confidential testing statewide. Tests are available for everyone, including underserved communities and individuals who are at high risk. 

Testing with Verily

Verily provides drive-through testing. To find a Verily testing site near you and make an appointment:

You will need a Google account.

Drive-through testing in Northern California

• Alturas (Modoc County)
• American Canyon (Napa County)
• Antioch (Contra Costa County)
• Atascadero (San Luis Obispo County)
• Bear Valley (Alpine County)
• Bishop (Inyo County)
• Calistoga (Napa County)
• Calpine (Sierra County)
• Ceres (Stanislaus County)
• Chowchilla (Madera County)
• Clearlake (Lake County)
• Coleville (Mono County)
• Corcoran (King County)
• Corona (King County)
• Crescent City (Del Norte County)
• Daly City (San Mateo County)
• Dinuba (Tulare County)
• Downieville (Sierra County)
• Earlimart (Tulare County)
• East Palo Alto (San Mateo County)
• Elk Grove (Sacramento County)
• Exeter (Tulare County)
• Farmersville (Tulare County)
• French Camp (San Joaquin County)
• Fresno (Fresno County)
• Gridley (Butte County)
• Half Moon Bay (San Mateo County)
• Hanford (King County)
• Hayfork (Trinity County)
• Jackson (Amador County)
• Kerman (Fresno County)
• Klamath (Del Norte County)
• Lakeport (Lake County)
• Lee Vining (Mono County)
• Lemoore (King County)
• Lewiston (Trinity County)
• Livingston (Merced County)
• Lone Pine (Inyo County)
• Los Baños (Merced County)
• Loyalton (Sierra County)
• Magalia (Butte County)
• Mammoth Lakes (Mono County)
• Markleeville (Alpine County)
• Merced (Merced County)
• Middletown (Lake County)
• Napa (Napa County)
• Placerville (El Dorado County)
• Pescadero (San Mateo County)
• Porterville (Tulare County)
• Redding (Shasta County)
• Redwood City (San Mateo County)
• Reedley (Fresno County)
• Rio Linda (Sacramento County)
• Sacramento (Sacramento County)
• Salida (Stanislaus County)
• San Bruno (San Mateo County)
• San Jose (Santa Clara County)
• San Mateo (San Mateo County)
• San Rafael (Marin County)
• Santa Rosa (Sonoma County)
• Selma (Fresno County)
• St. Helena (Napa County)
• Stockton (San Joaquin County)
• Susanville (Lassen County)
• Tracy (San Joaquin County)
• Tulare (Tulare County)
• Turlock (Stanislaus County)
• Upper Lake (Lake County)
• Vallejo (Solano County)
• Visalia (Tulare County)
• Wawona (Mariposa County)
• Weaverville (Trinity County)
• Woodlake (Tulare County)
• Woodland (Yolo County)
• Yosemite Valley (Mariposa County)

Drive-through testing in Southern California

• Alpine (San Diego County) 
• Anaheim (Orange County)
• Apple Valley (San Bernardino County)
• Bakersfield (Kern County)
• Banning (Riverside County)
• Barstow (San Bernardino County)
• Beaumont (Riverside County)
• Bell (Los Angeles County)
• Blythe (Riverside County)
• Brawley (Imperial County)
• Calexico (Imperial County)
• Coachella (Riverside County)
• Compton (Los Angeles County)
• Costa Mesa (Orange County)
• Delano (Kern County)
• Desert Hot Springs (Riverside County)
• El Centro (Imperial County)
• Fallbrook (San Diego)
• Fontana (San Bernardino County)
• Fullerton (Orange County)
• Gardena (Los Angeles County)
• Hemet (Riverside County)
• Hesperia (San Bernardino County)
• Indio (Riverside County)
• La Habra (Orange County)
• Lake Elsinore (Riverside County)
• Lamont (Kern County)
• Lancaster (Los Angeles County)
• Lemon Grove (San Diego County)
• Los Angeles (Los Angeles County)
• McFarland (Kern County)
• Oceanside (San Diego)
• Ontario (San Bernardino County)
• Palmdale (Los Angeles County)
• Paramount (Los Angeles County)
• Pasadena (Los Angeles County)
• Perris (Riverside County)
• Phelan (San Bernardino County)
• Pico Rivera (Los Angeles County)
• Pomona (Los Angeles County)
• Port Hueneme (Ventura County)
• Riverside (Riverside County)
• Rosamond (Kern County)
• San Jacinto (Riverside County)
• San Juan Capistrano (Orange County)
• Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County)
• Santa Paula (Ventura County)
• Seal Beach (Orange County)
• Shafter (Kern County)
• Valley Center (San Diego County)
• Victorville (San Bernardino County)
• Wasco (Kern County) 

Testing with OptumServe

Tests are by appointment only. Find a location near you and make an appointment at:

If you do not have internet access, call 1-888-634-1123.

OptumServe community testing sites serve all individuals who qualify for a test. This includes uninsured, underinsured, undocumented and homeless individuals. You do not need a driver’s license to get this test.

Bad tests and false positives: The upshot of what it really means

So what does all this really mean in a practical sense? Here are the bullet points of the rational conclusions:

• The infection numbers are wildly over-stated due to false positives from bogus testing kits.
• This means the infection fatality rates are under-stated, since far fewer people have been infected than we were led to believe.
• It also means that herd immunity is far off, since the actual percentage of people who have been infected is much smaller than what researchers have been reporting. In truth, the real number of infections may be just 1/10th what researchers have estimated (or even lower). Any attempt to leap across the chasm and try to rapidly achieve herd immunity in the USA will result in disaster (and mass death).
• This also means that reopening economies without taking proper precautions — such as wearing masks, which can end the pandemic if just 80% of the people participate — will lead to a catastrophic second round of infections and deaths.
• Finally, and perhaps most worryingly, this means that people are being told they’ve already been infected and are therefore immune and can go back to work. When, in reality, most of those people have never been infected at all. This will result in many people having a false sense of security, which would likely lead many of these people to avoid taking adequate precautions such as wearing masks.

In effect, the result of bad tests producing false positives is mass confusion and the gross mis-allocation of resources to fight the pandemic. If that sounds like the precise scenario that communist China would be trying to unleash across America as part of a biological warfare playbook, you’re exactly right.

That’s why we believe the false positive test kits are deliberately manufactured to be faulty as a way for China to magnify the spread of the coronavirus pandemic outside of China as part of its multiple waves of biological warfare against the West.

Almost certainly, China reserved the accurate kits for itself while exporting known “bad” kits to nations like the United States, all while pressuring the WHO to claim there was no pandemic at all.

If you want to learn even more about China’s plans to attack and destroy America, listen to this bombshell interview with JR Nyquist:

Stay informed by reading Pandemic.news and checking new video news at Brighteon.com.

Interpreting antibody tests

Interpretation of test results depends not only on the accuracy of the test itself but also the pre-test probability of infection. This will vary widely depending on the indication for testing: when screening asymptomatic individuals the pre-test probability will be relatively low, for those with suggestive symptoms it is likely to be much higher. We illustrate this with two (fictitious) clinical cases.

Case 1

Anthony is 53, has type 2 diabetes, and a raised body mass index. He works as a security guard in a shopping centre in Norwich. His wife is worried about his risk of exposure to covid-19 at work, and phones the GP surgery requesting an antibody test. He has not had any suggestive symptoms and has no known exposure.

Anthony’s pre-test probability can be estimated based on the population SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in his area; in the East of England this is estimated to be around 10%. As he has had no symptoms or known exposure his probability of asymptomatic seroconversion is likely to be lower; for illustrative purposes we estimate his pre-test probability at 5%.

We do not have any data on the accuracy of antibody assays in asymptomatic people on which to base our estimates. We will start by using the average sensitivity of 91.4% and average specificity of 98.7% from the Cochrane review and consider what would change if, as is likely, the test had a lower sensitivity. illustrates the outcomes of testing based on 1000 people like Anthony, with a pre-test probability of 5%. We would expect that 942 people would test negative, of whom four (0.4%) would actually have had covid-19 (false negatives). Considering that the test may well have a lower sensitivity, particularly if the peak incidence and therefore likely time of infection is >35 days ago, this would proportionally increase the false negative rate. If the test made five times as many false negatives (sensitivity of 57%) then this would rise to 20 false negatives (2.1%)—still relatively low numbers owing to the low prevalence. A negative test result would therefore mean Anthony is unlikely to have had covid-19 infection. However, of the 58 people who would test positive, 12 people (21%) would be falsely positive. This is important because a false positive could potentially influence Anthony’s behaviour and adherence to infection control measures. This could be particularly risky as Anthony has an occupational risk of exposure and comorbidities, placing him at higher risk of complications from covid-19. The GP should therefore explain that the test result cannot be used to indicate immunity, and that regardless of the results of testing, Anthony should follow recommended precautions to avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The test result in this case is therefore unlikely to change any advice given to the patient, and has the potential to cause harm through false reassurance.

Fig 1

Infographic showing outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing based on 1000 people with a pre-test probability of 5%

Why the coronavirus actually kills about 10% of those who become symptomatic

In the United States, the official numbers currently show that 1.35 million people are confirmed as infected, while 80,351 people have so far died from the virus. If you take these numbers at face value, that would put the current Case Fatality Rate (CFR) for the coronavirus at 5.9%.

The infection numbers, though, are wildly over-inflated due to faulty testing kits that produce false positives. If we adjust the infection numbers down to a more realistic level, the CFR jumps significantly higher. And yes, there are likely some people dying from other things who have been incorrectly counted as COVID-19 deaths, but the Financial Times analysis of excess mortalities from all causes ends that argument by documenting a huge surge in recent deaths from any cause, regardless of what’s stated on death certificates.

If anything, the number of coronavirus deaths is being under-stated by perhaps 50% or so, while the number of coronavirus infections is being over-stated by a wide margin.

And we actually have a way to take a good guess at the degree by which those infection numbers are over-inflated.

We already know that many of these kits produce somewhere around 10 false positives per 100 people tested, or a 10% false positive rate (many kits are far worse). We can also intelligently estimate that right now somewhere around 2% of the US population has actually been infected. This is a rough estimate, but as you’ll see below, whether this is 1% or 4% doesn’t change the conclusions by much.

Now, if you test 100 people for the coronavirus, and 2 out of those 100 actually have the coronavirus, but the test kits you’re using have a false positive rate of 10 out of 100, then you will get, essentially 12 positives out of 100.

Notably, 10 of those positives are false, and 2 are real. This means the false positives are 500% higher than the real positives. And if you rely on those findings, you would incorrectly think that 500% more people have been infected than actually have.

This is precisely what the Stanford Study did. They ran tests that produced false positives, then they extrapolated that false finding to the entire population of California. From that, they incorrectly concluded that a huge percentage of California had already been infected, and therefore the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of the coronavirus was very, very small. As we show in this Natural News article, Stanford researchers likely produced 13 false positives for every 1 real positive.

That entire conclusion falls apart when you realize the testing kits they used were made in China. In fact, those particular kits were so unreliable that Stanford researchers tried to hide the origins of the kits in their paper, but internet sleuths found out the kits were actually made by Hangzhou Biotest Biotech, a company that ranked last place in testing kit accuracy. As ExtremeTech.com explained:

At the time Stanford did the study, there weren’t any FDA-approved COVID-19 antibody tests for clinical use. But for research purposes, the team purchased tests from Premier Biotech in Minnesota. Premier has started marketing a COVID-19 antibody test, but it doesn’t create it. The test listed on the company’s website, and that it appears Stanford used, is from Hangzhou Biotest Biotech, an established Chinese lab test vendor.

It also turned out that the Wall Street Journal writer who touted the stunning findings of the paper was one of the paper co-authors who failed to identify his obvious conflict of interest. So the entire study — and the subsequent WSJ editorial coverage of it — was a rigged scam, 100% science fraud parading around as breaking news to try to deceive America into thinking the coronavirus was no real danger at all. It was a propaganda con job, and sadly, most of the pro-Trump independent media fell for it and repeated the bad conclusions, misinforming their own audiences and causing many people to believe the virus was “no more dangerous than the flu.”

Peak Prosperity also explained this in a detailed video, which I covered in this important podcast:

If you really crunch the numbers on this, it turns out the coronavirus is 56 to 100 times more deadly than the regular flu. But to realize that, you have to weed through the deliberate disinformation being pushed by those who are trying to downplay the severity of the virus for political reasons. (A foolish ploy that will catastrophically backfire when the second wave of infections becomes impossible to deny.)

Sshhh – don’t tell anyone

It is a sad indictment of our mainstream media that such a landmark ruling, of such obvious and pressing international importance, has been roundly ignored. If one were making (flimsy) excuses for them, one could say that the case escaped the notice of most science editors because it has been published in Portuguese. But there is a full English translation of the appeal, and alternative media to pick it up.

And it isn’t as if Portugal is some remote, mysterious nation where news is unreliable or whose judges are suspect – this is a western EU country with a large population and a similar legal system to many other parts of Europe. And it is not the only country whose institutions are clashing with received wisdom on Covid. Finland’s national health authority has disputed the WHO’s recommendation to test as many people as possible for coronavirus, saying it would be a waste of taxpayer’s money, while poorer South East Asian countries are holding off on ordering vaccines, citing an improper use of finite resources. 

Testing, especially PCR testing, is the basis for the entire house of cards of Covid restrictions that are wreaking havoc worldwide. From testing comes case numbers. From case numbers come the ‘R number,’ the rate at which a carrier infects others. From the ‘dreaded’ R number comes the lockdowns and the restrictions, such as England’s new and baffling tiered restrictions that come into force next week. 

The daily barrage of statistics is familiar to us all by this point, but as time goes on the evidence that something may be deeply amiss with the whole foundation of our reaction to this pandemic – the testing regime – continues to mount.

Pitfalls of antibody testing

Policies on testing that are population based and without a specific clinical indication essentially amount to screening. This risks potential harm if the consequences of testing are not carefully considered. If testing is based on patient request, rather than clinically driven, we anticipate that rates of testing will be higher in more affluent populations, who are at lower risk of covid-19, in keeping with the inverse care law. This also limits the usefulness of data for estimates of seroprevalence, as a self-selecting population will not be representative. Concerns have been raised about the implications of the rapid rollout of antibody testing and the chief medical officer in Scotland has advised against on-demand testing.

Reporting Problems to the FDA

The FDA encourages stakeholders to report any adverse events or suspected adverse events experienced with antigen tests for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2.

• Voluntary reports can be submitted through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.
• Generally, as specified in a test’s EUA, device manufacturers must comply with applicable Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulations.
• Health care personnel and clinical laboratory staff employed by facilities that are performing COVID-19 testing should follow the reporting requirements for authorized laboratories as specified in the test’s EUA.

Prompt reporting of adverse events can help the FDA identify and better understand the risks associated with medical devices.