\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n Since the beginning of the so-called pandemic, I\u2019ve been attacking the value of the PCR diagnostic test from many angles.\u00a0The primary angle, as my readers know, is: SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated, never proved to exist.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n However, I\u2019ve also ventured into the bubble world where a few billion people blindly accept the existence of the virus\u2014and I\u2019ve shown that even within that world, the internal contradictions and lies abound.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n One again, now, I\u2019m entering that bubble world, since the powers-that-be are widely promoting the use of an at-home test for the \u201cvirus.\u201d\u00a0This test is self-administered.\u00a0No doctor, nurse, or technician is present.\u00a0What could possibly go wrong, as millions of people perform the test on themselves?<\/div>\n <\/div>\n Well, let\u2019s lead off with DANGER.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n The reference is an undated FDA document titled,\u00a0\u201cBinaxNOWTM COVID-19 Antigen Self TEST.\u201d\u00a0The Binax test kit is manufactured by Abbott.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n Here is the key quote: \u201cThe Reagent Solution [included in the test kit] contains a harmful chemical (see table below). If the solution contacts the skin or eye, flush with copious amounts of water. If irritation persists, seek medical advice\u2026\u201d<\/div>\n <\/div>\n Then the FDA document lists that harmful chemical: sodium azide.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n Just how harmful is it?<\/div>\n <\/div>\n For an answer, let\u2019s look at a CDC document titled,\u00a0\u201cFacts About Sodium Azide.\u201d\u00a0We find this statement:<\/div>\n <\/div>\n \u201cSodium azide is a rapidly acting, potentially deadly chemical that exists as an odorless white solid.\u201d<\/div>\n <\/div>\n Then there is this: \u201cSodium azide prevents the cells of the body from using oxygen. When this happens, the cells die.\u00a0Sodium azide is more harmful to the heart and the brain than to other organs, because the heart and the brain use a lot of oxygen.\u201d<\/div>\n <\/div>\n Yes, as with all poisons, the degree of damage depends on the dosage, but you decide whether \u201cpotentially deadly,\u201d as the CDC describes sodium azide, signifies a significant risk.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n If you read the FDA document I referenced above, you\u2019ll see that the reagent containing sodium azide is involved in the self-administered COVID test, and the whole test procedure is complex enough to allow fumbles and mistakes\u2014such as a spill of the \u201cdeadly chemical.\u201d<\/div>\n <\/div>\n Don\u2019t believe me?\u00a0Try this FDA quote on for size: \u201cTo perform the test, an anterior nasal swab specimen is collected by the patient, then 6 drops of extraction reagent from a dropper bottle are added to the top hole of the swab well. The patient sample is inserted into the test card through the bottom hole of the swab well, and firmly pushed upwards until the swab tip is visible through the top hole. The swab is rotated 3 times clockwise and the card is closed, bringing the extracted sample into contact with the test strip. Test results are interpreted visually at 15 minutes based on the presence or absence of visually detectable pink\/purple colored lines.\u201d<\/div>\n <\/div>\n See what I mean?\u00a0Good luck.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n Now let\u2019s move on to the second problem with this at-home self-performed COVID test: it\u2019s grossly misleading.\u00a0The results are ambiguous.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n The FDA document I\u2019ve been quoting contains this gem: \u201cThe BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Self Test does not differentiate between SARS-CoV and SARS\u2026CoV-2.\u201d<\/div>\n <\/div>\n BOOM.\u00a0In other words, a positive test, indicating infection, could mean nothing more than infection with the 2003 \u201cSARS virus\u201d\u2014and that \u201cepidemic\u201d was a dud.\u00a0But wait, there\u2019s more:<\/div>\n | |