Connect with us

Health

Evidence emerges that COVID tests are faulty. FDA and CDC admit as much

Editor

Published

on

On November 3, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released guidelines for COVID-19 rapid antigen testing, acknowledging a high likelihood of incorrect results. The letter stated that medical professionals “should expect some false positive results to occur even when very accurate tests are used for screening large populations with a low prevalence of infection.”

According to the FDA, the accuracy of rapid tests depends almost totally on the amount of COVID-19 in the population being tested. “As disease prevalence decreases, the percent of test results that are false positives increase,” the FDA stated.

“For example, a test with 98% specificity” would accurately screen “just over 80% in a population with 10% prevalence.” More than “20 out of 100 positive results would be false positives,” they said.

The FDA added that “in a population with 1% prevalence, only 30% of individuals with positive test results actually have the disease.” In an area with 0.1% prevalence, positive results from rapid tests would be right merely 4% of the time.

“Health care providers should take the local prevalence into consideration when interpreting diagnostic test results,” the FDA emphasized.

Prevalence rate of COVID has been recorded as low as between 0.0%-1.79% in Idaho and 6.4% in Pennsylvania, for example. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently estimated the prevalence rate in the New Orleans metropolitan area to be around 7%.

The FDA detailed additional reasons for rapid testing inaccuracies, including cross-contamination and complications for processing samples in batches. The federal government committed to the distribution 150 million rapid tests this year.

The CDC has echoed the FDA’s recommendations, noting that antigen tests “are not 100% accurate and some false positive results or false negative results may occur.”

“Antibody test results should not be used to determine if someone can return to work” or “to group people together in settings such as schools, dormitories, and correctional facilities,” the CDC stated.

“People who receive positive results on an antibody test but don’t have symptoms of COVID-19 and have not been around someone who may have COVID-19 are not likely to have a current infection” and should “continue with normal activities,” they said.

The CDC had issued similar guidelines in August, which stated that “predictive values are determined by the percentage of truly antibody positive individuals in the tested population (prevalence, pre-test probability) and the sensitivity and specificity of the test.” The same month, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology determined that rapid tests with 98% specificity deployed in American schools could yield around 800,000 false positives every week.

In October, the Health Department of Nevada barred rapid tests in nursing homes after finding that at least 58% of a sample of positive results actually were negative. A Nevada health official cautioned that defective antigen tests pose particular risks for nursing homes residents, who could be “in danger of contracting the virus” by being confined “to a room full of actual positive residents.” The Department of Health and Human Services quickly pressured Nevada into rescinding the ban.

Concerns about the effectiveness of COVID tests extend beyond rapid antigen testing. Another peer-reviewed article from August found that RT-PCR tests result in false negatives in up to 29% of cases. The CDC has touted PCR tests, which work by evaluating gene samples, as the “gold standard” of COVID testing methods.

Nevertheless, on November 17, the CDC highlighted a study showing that screening for a single PCR test only caught 53% of all positive cases of COVID in students returning home from college. The FDA likewise blamed the method of PCR tests when health workers in Vermont discovered that only about 6% of positive results from a sample of antigen tests were affirmed subsequently by PCR. A team of American and British scientists also have claimed that PCR nasal swabs have around 63% sensitivity, while PCR throat swabs have 32% sensitivity. The researchers denied that a “gold standard” for coronavirus tests exists.

The main PCR protocol for testing for COVID has come into question since the journal that published the original article failed for ten months to provide a peer-reviewed report. At the end of November, “an international consortium of life-science scientists” submitted a letter demanding retraction of the paper, calling it “severely flawed with respect to its biomolecular and methodological design.”

An appeals court in Portugal recently deemed PCR testing for the coronavirus to be unreliable. Other legal challenges are pending in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and South Africa, according to former Pfizer Vice President Dr. Mike Yeadon. Writing for Lockdown Skeptics, Yeadon criticized mass PCR testing in the United Kingdom, warning of “a severe risk of what we call a ‘PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic.’” Last month, a whistleblower exposed massive

contamination risks in a major UK testing facility staffed with employees who had “no experience with this sort of facility or handling bio-hazardous.”

New reports of substantial COVID test issues have come as state governments across the country have enacted extreme restrictions on social activities in light of an alleged “fall surge.”

Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo (D) decreed a “social gathering limit” two weeks ago, saying, “you should not be spending time socially with anyone you don’t live with — this includes on Thanksgiving.” Oregon implemented a “Two-Week Freeze” on November 18, limiting at-home gatherings to six people, and fully closing businesses deemed “non-essential.” More than a dozen states are pursuing similar policies.

California re-instated a stay-at-home order, banned singing in churches, and recommended that families celebrate Thanksgiving outside. Governor Gavin Newsom (D) energized an ongoing recall campaign against him earlier this month when he was pictured at a party in a high-end restaurant with the CEO of the California Medical Association. Participants were not wearing masks and not socially distanced.

While governors have cited apparently unprecedented numbers of COVID cases and hospitalizations, the reliability of seemingly rising rates remains a live question. Along with the wealth of evidence attesting to failures of COVID testing, other studies have noted that the COVID death rate has dropped by 70% since March and that total U.S. fatalities only have increased by 11,292 compared to 2018.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Health

BRAINWASHING THE YOUNG: Cry Babies dolls allow children to “vaccinate” their dolls, causing measles-looking red dots on their face to vanish

Editor

Published

on

By

Awareness seems to be growing about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines, so much so that a children’s doll product known as “Cry Babies” was designed to brainwash innocent kids into believing that vaccination is the way to “cure” disease.

A commercial spot for Cry Babies shows two little girls playing with a doll named “Kristal” that develops strange red spots on her face. When the girls notice the spots, their response is to immediately inject the doll with a vaccine, which makes the red spots disappear on contact.

“Look, she has spots!” the one girl says to the other.

“Give her the injection!” the other responds.

On the Cry Babies website, the description for the Kristal doll explains that she “is sick” and needs “the right medicine” in order “to help her feel better.”

“If she gets a cough, give her the medicine to help her stop coughing,” the description adds. “If she gets a fever, you will need to dab her forehead with the wet cloth to help cool her down.”

“When red spot will appear on her face, give her the injection to make them disappear!” it is further explained. “Like all Cry Babies, Kristal also cries real tears when you remove her dummy and makes realistic baby sounds. 6 accessories included; a dummy, a stethoscope, an injection, a cloth, cough syrup and a thermometer.”

Normalizing vaccines for every ailment is the ultimate goal

The Kristal doll, along with the rest of the Cry Babies lineup, is reportedly available in the United States at Target, Walmart and Amazon. The company that manufactures them, IMC Toys, is based out of the United Kingdom.

Brainwashing young kids into believing that vaccines are “science-based medicine” is only part of the agenda, by the way. The ultimate goal is to convince the next generation that vaccines are the “cure” for pretty much every ailment and addiction, whether it be plandemic viruses like Covid-19 or alcohol addiction.

Vaccines are the be all, end all “solution” to whatever ails you, in other words. This is the true agenda behind children’s products like Cry Babies, which parents need to be aware of and avoid while doing their Christmas shopping this year.

On Twitter, vaccine truth advocates jested at Kristal, pointing out that the doll probably does not come with real-life side effects such as diarrhea, asthma and seizures.

“The doll gets some autoimmune / allergic rash and they inject some high-dose corticosteroid / immunosuppressants and the rash goes away (for some time at least). Just like real doctors!” wrote one, making a great point about how the Kristal doll is ill-equipped to teach children the intricacies about how injections really work.

Another noted that such propaganda has been a mainstay of American programming for many decades, though in the past it was primarily geared towards an adult audience.

“Since the late 40s / early 50s, TV has spread the disease of excessive consumerism throughout societies worldwide,” this person wrote. “Add to that its use as a highly effective propaganda tool and it didn’t take long for the corporate world to realize the propaganda with products such as this.”

Perhaps the best advice came from one user who encouraged parents to program their children with the truth rather than allow them to be programmed with pro-vaccine propaganda.

“Show your kids the vaccine-injured babies and their parents’ stories,” this individual added, stressing that the next generation of youth need to recognize that vaccines are unsafe and harmful, and are not a risk worth taking under nearly any circumstance.

Continue Reading

Health

Johns Hopkins published, then deleted, study showing COVID-19 had no measurable effect on deaths in the United States

Editor

Published

on

By

The Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is not even close to being the threat that Anthony Fauci and others in government continue to claim it is. And Johns Hopkins University agrees – or at least it did agree before the school deleted a study it published showing that the novel virus has had “relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, we were able to pull up the now-deleted original paper, which delineates that so-called “infection” with COVID-19 is really no big deal.

When it comes to the death rate this year, there has been almost no change compared to previous years, despite the presence of COVID-19. Things are essentially the same as they have always been, the exception being all the panic, mask-wearing, and eager anticipation among some of a soon-coming vaccine.

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” stated Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins.

After compiling and analyzing the death rate among all age groups both before and after the pandemic was declared in the United States on March 13, Briand found that the death rate among older people, who are said to be most susceptible, remained the same.

So while it is said that COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, significantly increasing their risk of death supposedly, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) disagrees.

More of the latest news about COVID-19 can be found at Pandemic.news.

No, COVID-19 has not increased the death rate among Americans

Briand further found that COVID-19 has not increased the death rate among younger people, either. In every age category, the death rate has remained roughly the same both before and during the pandemic, suggesting that all the panic and hysteria is completely unfounded.

In every year prior to 2020, the death rate from all causes has remained the same. Even this year when accounting for so-called COVID-19 deaths, the overall death total has not changed.

“This is true every year,” Briand says about the seasonal increases in death that usually occur in the fall and winter months, 2020 being no exception. “Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes.”

What has changed this year is that all other causes of death, including heart disease, respiratory illness, influenza, and pneumonia, have mysteriously declined, while COVID-19 deaths have increased.

This proves that deaths from all causes are now being categorized exclusively as deaths from COVID-19. Meanwhile, nobody is dying anymore from heart disease, respiratory illness, influenza or pneumonia.

A data chart included in Briand’s study illustrates this clearly, showing that the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.

“This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading,” the paper explains. “Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.”

In other words, if a person tests positive for COVID-19 and dies at some point in the future from any cause, that death is tabulated as caused by COVID-19 for political and financial purposes.

“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths,” Briand reiterated. “Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary.”

Continue Reading

Health

Expert points out “shaky science” behind AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine trial results

Editor

Published

on

By

An expert has warned that results from AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine trials are based on “shaky science.” Scientist-turned-writer Hilda Bastian pointed out that data on the British drugmaker’s COVID-19 vaccine, developed with the University of Oxford, has been “patched together” and excludes groups with the highest COVID-19 risk. Bastian wrote in a piece for Wired that AstraZeneca’s data came from two separate studies – one in May and another that commenced at the end of June – that were substantially different from each other. She remarked: “The fact that they may have had to combine data from [these] two trials in order to get a strong result raises the first red flag.”

Bastian mentioned that a dosing error contributed to a higher success rate: Experts accidentally gave some volunteers one and a half doses of the vaccine instead of two full doses. She added the trials were never designed to test this method of dosing, and scientists only caught the “mistake” when some participants did not exhibit the usual high rate of adverse effects. Bastian noted in her Wired article that “of the only two regimens … the mistaken first half-dose, followed by a full dose at least a month later came in at 90 percent [efficacy], and the … two standard doses at least a month apart [regimen] achieved only 62 percent efficacy.”

The expert also mentioned that the trials by AstraZeneca and Oxford appear to include only a small amount of people aged 55 and above – despite this particular age group being vulnerable to COVID-19. The June vaccine trial held in Brazil did not originally permit people over 55; on the other hand, a separate trial by Pfizer and BioNTech had 41 percent of volunteers over 55 who participated.

A number of experts have also voiced out concerns against AstraZeneca’s presented data

Former Pfizer Global Research and Development President John LaMattina raised the prospect that AstraZeneca’s vaccine may not receive approval from U.S. authorities. He tweeted Nov. 24 that it was “hard to believe” the Food and Drug Administration will issue an emergency use authorization for a vaccine “whose optimal dose has only been given to 2,300 people,” adding that “more data” was needed.

SVB Leerink investment analyst Geoffrey Porges told the Financial Times that the British pharmaceutical firm’s coronavirus vaccine candidate was likely to be rejected because it had “tried to embellish [the trial’s] results” by highlighting its effectiveness in a “relatively small subset of” participants in the study.

Continue Reading

Chat

Trending