How accurate is the Corona virus test?
- Created on Tuesday, 17 March 2020 16:08
What troubles me most about the Corona crisis is the assumption that the new PCR test that they whipped up to detect the virus is infallible. By symptoms alone, the disease is indistinguishable from flu. You can't tell the difference, and neither can your doctor. That sputum test is the ONLY thing that makes the call. So, the accuracy and reliability of the test is crucial.
But, nothing is being said about possibility of the test failing. The possibility of false negatives has been suggested, but not on the basis of the test failing, but rather, on the basis of it being too early for the infected person to have enough virus to show it. The implication is that, in time, the person will test positive.
But, what about the possibility of false positives? The guy who invented the test and won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it, Kary Mullis, denied that the PCR test can be used to determine "viral loads" at all. He objected to the use of the PCR test to determine who has HIV and Ebola. Unfortunately, Kary Mullis died last August of pneumonia at the age of 74.
The test involves taking a single strand of RNA, converting it to DNA with the enzyme "reverse transcriptase" and then applying the enzyme "polymerase" to cause billions of duplications. But, Mullis said you can't use it to quantify, since you're only taking one nucleic acid strand from the person, and others besides him have questioned using the PCR test this way.
It's being reported that for the vast majority of people (80%) the illness from Corona virus is mild and short. And for some reason, children are largely not getting sick from it. In China, less than 2% of the victims have been children. It's been suggested that children have more "innate immunity" but that is just a rationalization because children tend to get respiratory infections very easily.
And it also appears that plenty of adults can contact the virus without catching it. The wife of Prime Minister Trudeau tested positive, and I presume she was tested because she showed symptoms. But, they have insisted that she is not terribly sick and mostly fine. And he isn't sick at all. So, either he didn't catch the virus from her despite being in an intimate relationship with her OR he caught it, and it's just not making him sick.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz shook hands with people who had it, and he immediately went into self-quarantine. It was on February 29 that he interacted with persons who went on to test positive, and this is March 17. So far, he hasn't gotten sick. Has he even tested positive?
The British actor Idris Elba announced yesterday that he has tested positive, and he is not sick. He has no symptoms. So, why did he test? It's because he shook hands with somebody who apparently has it. But, he is not sick so far, and his wife, who lives and sleeps with him, is not sick.
So, the idea has been raised that the symptoms of Corona virus infection are sometimes nothing, that some people simply don't get sick from it, even though they have it. And that's not a new idea because it's reported that 80% of Americans test positive for Epstein-Barr virus, even though very few of them have mononucleosis or other conditions attributed to Epstein-Barr. So, Epstein-Barr makes you sick- except when it doesn't.
Let's note that the Epstein-Barr test is an antibody test, and that is very different from the test they are using to determine Corona, the PCR test. The following is by Jon Rappaport, and it was written in regard to using PCR to detect Ebola.