The Falling Of The House Of Cards: 3. The test is wrong.

The house of corona cards was built on nothing but myths.Show more

These are the 10 major defragmented contextualised facts.

Full talk:
https://rumble.com/vvj9ft-the-falling-of-the-house-of-cards.html

3. The test is wrong. Even the best RT-PCR test is neither diagnostic for an infection with SARS-CoV-2 nor for sickness or death from COVID-19. The Corman-Drosten RT-PCR test protocol is the worst possible for SARS-CoV-2 we could possibly imagine. Any advanced biochemistry student can make a better one in a single day. It was fabricated poorly and vaguely, without validation and standardisation. Nevertheless, it was immediately declared the global gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19 by the WHO.

From a laboratory survey conducted in Germany, we know that, due to cross-reaction with other beta coronaviruses, its specificity of about 99%, corresponding to 1% false positives, which is already low in the absence of any virus, is further reduced to about 92%, corresponding to 8% false positives, in the presence of other beta corona viruses during the flu season.

These false positive rates may seem low to laypeople because they do not realise that the meaning of 1 or 8% false positive test results is highly dependent on the prevalence of the virus. In the virtual absence of the virus, at prevalence close to 0, especially between the flu seasons, almost all positive RT-PCR tests are false positives.

Imagine we test 1000 men with a 99% specific pregnancy test. Then 1%, 10 tests, will be positive and because of prevalence 0 of pregnancy in men, these positive pregnancy tests are all false positives. If we chose a pregnancy test with 92% specificity, 8%, 80 tests would be false positive.

Everywhere, the tests are performed differently and at too high cycle thresholds. Their results are reported without reference to clinical symptoms and findings. The Corman-Drosten RT-PCR test serves mostly to blow up the number of infected with SARS-CoV-2, sick and deceased from COVID-19, thus creating mainly a PCR testing pandemic.

PCR testing epidemics are well known and quite common. A nice example was described in the New York Times article entitled: 'Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn't', published in 2007.

In a medical centre in the U.S. state of New Hampshire, a whooping cough epidemic had apparently broken out in spring 2006.

Nearly 1,000 staff members got a quick PCR test and were put on leave from work until the results were in; 14% of those tested, were positive and diagnosed with pertussis. Thousands, including many children, received antibiotics and a vaccine as protection. Hospital beds were taken out of service as a precaution, including some in the intensive care unit.

Months later, bacterial cultures, the diagnostic gold standard for pertussis, could not detect the causative bacterium in any single sample.

The supposed pertussis epidemic had not taken place in reality, but only in the minds of those involved, triggered by blind faith in a highly sensitive, unspecific quick PCR test. In reality, all those who had fallen ill had suffered from a harmless cold. Infectiologists and epidemiologists had put aside their expertise and common sense and blatantly ignored this most likely differential diagnosis of cough as a symptom.

An infectiologist said: ‘I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.’

And an epidemiologist explained: ‘One of the most troubling aspects of the pseudo-epidemic is that all the decisions seemed so sensible at the time.’