In previous articles, I've detailed several key reasons why the PCR test is worthless and deceptive.
Here
I discuss yet another reason: the uniformity of the test has never been
properly validated. Different labs come up with different results.
Let's start here---the reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, "Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn't."
"Dr.
Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center,
could not stop coughing...By late April, other health care workers at
the hospital were coughing..."
"For months, nearly everyone
involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough
outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers
at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and
furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including
Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands
were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were
taken out of commission, including some in intensive care."
"Then,
about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to
receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing
them that the whole thing was a false alarm."
"Now, as they look
back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists
say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and
highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray."
"There
are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on
such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns
Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care
Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all
the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was
by no means an exception, she said."
"Many of the new molecular
[PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may
do them in its own way. These tests, called 'home brews,' are not
commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error
rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when
hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth,
false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic."
"'You're
in a little bit of no man's land,' with the new molecular [PCR] tests,
said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief
scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a
nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
'All bets are off on exact performance'."
"With pertussis, she
[Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, 'there are probably 100 different P.C.R.
protocols and methods being used throughout the country,' and it is
unclear how often any of them are accurate. 'We have had a number of
outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive
results, the disease was not pertussis,' Dr. Kretsinger added."
"Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson."
"'The
big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,'
Dr. Petti said. 'No single test result is absolute and that is even
more important with a test result based on P.C.R'."
---Sobering,
to say the least. Of course, some people will claim that since the date
of the Times' article (2007), vast improvements have been made in the
PCR test.
Really? The truth is, something much worse is lurking
in the weeds. It has been lurking ever since the PCR was approved for
use in diagnostics:
No large study validating the uniformity of PCR results, from lab to lab, has ever been done.
You
would think at least a dozen very large studies had checked for uniform
results, before unleashing the PCR on the public; but no, this was not
the case. It is still not the case.
Here is what should have been done decades ago:
Take
a thousand volunteers. Remove tissue samples from each person. Send
those samples to 30 different labs. Have the labs run PCR and announce
their findings for each volunteer.
"We found the following virus in sample 1..." Something simple like that.
Now
compare the findings, in each of the 1000 cases, from all 30 labs. Are
the findings the same? Are the outcomes uniform all the way across the
board?
My money would be against it. Strongly against.
But
this is not the end of the process. SEVERAL of these large-scale
studies should be done. In EACH study, there are 1000 volunteers and 30
labs.
Why? Because, as you can readily see, the whole story
about a current pandemic is riding on those tests. The story, the
containment measures, the lockdowns, the economic devastation, the human
destruction---it's all built on the presumption that the PCR is a valid
test.
It's unthinkable that these validation studies of the PCR
weren't done decades ago. But they weren't. And there is only one
reason why: to avoid the truth. The results of the PCR aren't uniform.
They vary from lab to lab.
One lab says positive for virus B. Another lab says negative for virus B. Both labs are looking at the same sample.
No? Couldn't be? Then prove it with the several large-scale studies I'm proposing.
I'll give you a rough fictional analogy for the current testing situation---
In
an old-growth forest of immense trees, a government agency tests white
spots found on some trunks. The verdict? A highly destructive and
novel fungus, for which there is no remedy. Without immediate and
drastic action, the fungus will spread to the whole forest and destroy
all the trees.
So a government contract is signed with a logging company, and workers move in and start cutting down many trees.
Meanwhile,
another lab tests those white spots and reports they're harmless bird
droppings. Yet another lab claims they're a mild traditional fungus of
no great concern.
The reports of these two labs are suppressed and censored. The labs are put on a quiet blacklist, and their business dries up.
The tree cutting continues.
An
analyst at the US Forestry Service sends a memo to his boss. It
details the fact that the test which found deadly fungus is unreliable.
Different labs doing the test come up with different and conflicting
results.
Worse yet, that test was never properly validated as a
uniform process before being approved for use. In other words, no one
did a large study in which multiple labs used the test to determine the
composition of spots found on trees. No one made sure that all labs
came to the same conclusions using the test.
The Forestry analyst
writes: "The test has inherent flaws. Different labs examining the
same sample will always come up with different results. This has
disastrous consequences in the real world. You can see that now; we are
cutting down half a forest to prevent the spread of a fungus which has
been noticed for centuries, and never caused serious harm..."
The
analyst is fired from his job and firmly reminded that he signed a
non-disclosure agreement, and he better keep his mouth shut.
The tree-cutting goes on. A developer buys up the cleared land at a very low price...
In
essence, the pipeline of information from actually reliable sources, to
the government, and then to the public, is narrowed, and guarded
against unwelcome intrusions of TRUTH.
In the case of the PCR test, that's what is happening.
SOURCE:
nytimes[dot]com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html |
No comments:
Post a Comment