{"id":30927,"date":"2020-10-07T16:21:08","date_gmt":"2020-10-07T20:21:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=30927"},"modified":"2020-10-07T16:22:07","modified_gmt":"2020-10-07T20:22:07","slug":"covid-19-test-produces-up-to-90-false-positives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=30927","title":{"rendered":"COVID-19 Test Produces Up To 90% False Positives"},"content":{"rendered":"

NY TIMES: Up to 90% Who\u2019ve Tested COVID-Positive Wrongly Diagnosed! TRUTH: A Whole Lot Worse!<\/h1>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

by\u00a0Michael Thau<\/h3>\n
\n
\n

\u201cThe urge to save humanity is almost always <\/strong>
\na false face for the urge to rule it.\u201d
\n<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n

\u2015 H.L. Mencken<\/p>\n

\n

In the previous\u00a0entry<\/a>, we learned how a process invented to increase the size of research samples of DNA called\u00a0polymerase chain reaction<\/em>\u00a0is used to test for viruses even though the guy who received a Nobel Prize for inventing it said using it that way doesn\u2019t work.<\/p>\n

Kary Mullis\u2019s PCR process takes segments of DNA through a \u201ccycle\u201d that doubles the amount. If you run a single segment of DNA through just 40 cycles, you\u2019ll end up with 1 x 240<\/sup>, which is over a trillion copies. Remember that number, it\u2019s going to be important later.<\/p>\n

We also saw that the COVID-19 virus, like any other virus, is just some genetic code surrounded by a shell that acts as a \u201cTrojan horse,\u201d allowing the virus to invade the cells of living organisms. Once inside, the genetic code exits the shell, hijacking the cell\u2019s functions to make it produce more copies of the virus.<\/p>\n

The genetic code inside the COVID-19 virus\u2019s shell is RNA. So, since the PCR cycle only works on DNA, before a sample is tested for COVID-19 another process is used to convert the former into the latter. Once that\u2019s done, the sample is run through a number of PCR cycles to amplify the amount of any converted-viral-RNA that was originally in it so there\u2019s enough be detected.<\/p>\n

But two factors are responsible for creating the massive unreliability of PCR testing that, as we saw in\u00a0part 1<\/a>, the New York Times reported on but downplayed to push for mass testing of a different kind without discrediting the whole concept.<\/p>\n

\n
    \n
  1. The bits of genetic material whose amount is being amplified ARE NOT viruses. They\u2019re just small segments of inert genetic material found inside a virus\u2019s shell. Without the shell, they don\u2019t have any ability to infect a cell and reproduce. The PCR test doesn\u2019t detect \u201clive\u201d viruses, at best it only detects their \u201cremains.\u201d<\/li>\n
  2. The detection of viral remains involves massively amplifying the amount in the original sample by running it through successive PCR cycles. And nothing about the PCR test itself will tell you if there was actually\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0\u201clive\u201d virus in the original sample.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    The number of PCR cycles it takes to amplify a sample containing viral remains to the point where they can be detected is called its\u00a0cycle threshold.<\/em><\/p>\n

    And if the New York Times were interested in producing journalism rather than shilling for mandatory testing, they would have focused their whole story on something you have to read three-fourths of the way in to even find out.<\/p>\n

    The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that \u201ccommercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures \u201cfor policy decisions.\u201d The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures \u201ccan be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    So the FDA and CDC have spent months hyping a test that involves amplifying tiny samples of viral remains until there\u2019s enough to detect. But, according to the New York Times, there are no rules or even any guidelines for how much amplification the testing companies do.<\/p>\n

    Even though obviously, the more positive test results they churn out, the more downstream business they\u2019ll get from people who are worried because they had contact with someone that tested positive and the general increased concern over the virus.<\/p>\n

    \"APJournalist Brian Fuss holds up COVID-19 testing information after receiving a coronavirus test by the White House Medical Unit before attending a news conference with President Donald Trump in the press briefing room at the White House, Thursday, April 9, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo\/Andrew Harnik)<\/em><\/p>\n

    And, of course, the Times neglected to mention any of that but, instead, focused on pushing for continuing to mass test for COVID-19 but using a different test.<\/p>\n

    As we saw in the previous\u00a0entry<\/a>, they also failed to mention that, since any test will have a false positive rate, mass testing will mean that an alarming number of bogus COVID-19 cases will continue to be reported every single day from now til eternity even after the virus has run its course, creating an illusory pandemic that never goes away.<\/p>\n

    Convenient huh?<\/p>\n

    But what the New York Times says about the unreliability of PCR testing also significantly understates how badly the cycling process is being abused to inflate the number of positive test results.<\/p>\n

    And it\u2019s probably no coincidence that, had they been upfront about just how unreliable the data we\u2019ve thus far gotten from PCR-testing is, they would have had a tough time claiming there was any justification for mass testing by other means.<\/p>\n

    Their article informs us that most testing companies run the samples they receive through 40 cycles. As we saw above, that means any genetic material in them is being multiplied\u00a0over a trillion times<\/em>. We\u2019re told that a few companies run samples through only 37 cycles, which is still multiplying the amount of converted viral-RNA by a factor of almost 140 billion.<\/p>\n

    The New York Times goes on to say that the \u201cC.D.C.\u2019s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.\u201d But, this is a deceptive way of stating what the CDC\u2019s\u00a0data<\/a>\u00a0shows that significantly understates how using 40 or even 37 cycles is going to result in massive amounts of positive diagnoses that ought to be negative.<\/p>\n

    The CDC didn\u2019t just have \u201cextreme difficulty\u201d finding any live virus in samples whose cycle threshold was above 33. They were straight-up\u00a0unable<\/em>\u00a0to find any. Moreover, they were frequently unable to find any live virus even in samples with lower cycle thresholds.<\/p>\n

    But the worst is yet to come.<\/p>\n

    Though the CDC replied to the Times by saying they were \u201cexamining the use of cycle threshold measures for policy decisions,\u201d the New York Times either didn\u2019t know or didn\u2019t want you to know that the CDC already has\u00a0guidelines<\/a>\u00a0that recommend \u2026 wait for it\u2026 40 amplification cycles. Even though\u00a0their own researchers<\/em>\u00a0were unable to find any live virus in samples with a cycling threshold greater than 33!<\/p>\n

    That\u2019s right folks. The CDC issued guidelines for COVID-19 testing that their own research shows are bound to mean that a lot of people not infected by the virus would get back test results falsely saying they were.<\/p>\n

    Moreover, even running samples through the 33 cycles the New York Times mentions as the cutoff point in the CDC\u2019s research appears to be way too much amplification.<\/p>\n

    One\u00a0paper<\/a>\u00a0the CDC cites reports finding no \u201clive\u201d virus in any samples whose cycle threshold is greater than 24. And, even the CDC found a lot more samples that had no live virus than they did samples that did for cycle thresholds between 24 and 33.<\/p>\n

    Moreover, a pooled analysis of several different studies by a team of researchers at\u00a0Oxford\u00a0<\/a>also concluded that positive PCR test results from samples with cycle thresholds over 24 shouldn\u2019t be taken to indicate the presence of any actual virus.<\/p>\n

    The upshot of all of this is that the 40 amplification cycles recommended by the CDC and used in the majority of U.S\u00a0 labs looks like it will generate a lot more bogus positive test results than even the New York Times said.<\/p>\n

    The Times claimed that around 90% of samples taken from a set of positive tests that used 40 cycles were really negative because, when they were run through only 30 cycles, no viral remains were detected.<\/p>\n

    But given that 30 cycles also appear to be way too much amplification, it\u2019s likely that a lot more than just 90% were actually bogus. Who knows how few positive diagnoses would have been verified if they\u2019d used the much lower 24 number of amplifying cycles recommended by the Oxford team and above which the other research cited by the CDC found no live virus.<\/p>\n

    Moreover, though that other research did at least sometimes find actual virus in some samples with cycle thresholds at or below 24, they still frequently found none. Meaning that, so far as the available research goes, positive PCR test results appear to\u00a0never be very reliable<\/em>\u00a0regardless of how few amplification cycles are used.<\/p>\n

    But it gets even worse. All the studies cited by the CDC were done only on people with symptoms. And it turns out that the number of days after onset seems to have a huge effect on whether positive PCR test results are reliable.<\/p>\n

    According to that study the CDC cited that found no virus at cycle thresholds above 24, if a sample testing positive is taken more than seven days after the onset of symptoms, the probability that the test is indicating the presence of live virus is\u2026 wait for it\u2026. zero.<\/p>\n

    But even positive test results from samples taken\u00a0within<\/em>\u00a07 days of the onset of symptoms don\u2019t turn out to be very reliable.\u00a0 The study only found a\u00a040% or less<\/em>\u00a0chance of discovering any live virus in samples testing positive for viral remains that were taken on any of the first seven days after symptom onset\u00a0except<\/em>\u00a0the third and fourth. And the ones taken on the third day only had an 80% chance of containing any virus while the ones taken on the fourth only had a 70% chance.<\/p>\n

    Even for people with symptoms, the research seems to show that regardless of how few cycles you use the PCR test is going to diagnose a lot of people who aren\u2019t actually infected with the COVID-19 virus as positive.<\/p>\n

    But what\u2019s worse for the regime of mass testing is that none of these studies was done on asymptomatic patients at all. So we have no reason whatsoever to believe that PCR testing is\u00a0ever<\/em>\u00a0reliable for discovering infections in people who don\u2019t show symptoms.<\/p>\n

    Remember:<\/p>\n