PCR tests are used to diagnose a myriad of illnesses. Yeah, there are some PCR tests out there right now which should be avoided given poor sensitivty/specificty metrics but what makes you say they're fraudulent?
I mean, it does make sense to list a past case as a case, but they should revise up the existing counts for the positive antibody test, and not be counted and graphed as new.
If anything it helps lower the death rate down to even closer to a statistical zero than it is now.
There definitely are tests available which can get the job done well. Of course nothing can be 100% accurate but there are tests which have sensitivity/specificity values that are strong enough to offer high confidence. Not saying that increased testing and the resulting data, which we actually need and should expect, can't be used by the fuckers for their agenda of "muh mail-in balloting" and "muh shutdown" but don't act like there are no tests available which diagnose properly. Here's some validation studies for a Utah-based small speciality test manufacturer that has some of the cheapest PCR tests on the market: http://codiagnostics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CODX-Logix-Smart-COV19-Performance-April-2020.pdf.
FDA is moving at snail's pace with Emergency Use Authorization on a couple saliva tests I've been keeping my eye out for. The NIH is also supposed to have a program dubbed 'RADx' for ramping up production of some of the most promising testing solutions out there. I'm sure they're on it but the fact that they do not communicate any updates combined with the federal agencies less than flattering record for efficiency leaves me frustrated.
Nope it was the faulty tests that test mangos papayas and goats as positive.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY STILL NO ACCURATE NOR RELIABLE TESTS IN THE WORLD FOR THE COVIDOL.
THEY ARE DRAWING US INTO THE NARRATIVE WITH THIS IT'S A SETUP.
The new "cases" are fabricated from new definitions of probable and suspected without even taking the fraudulent PCR test
PCR tests are used to diagnose a myriad of illnesses. Yeah, there are some PCR tests out there right now which should be avoided given poor sensitivty/specificty metrics but what makes you say they're fraudulent?
I mean, it does make sense to list a past case as a case, but they should revise up the existing counts for the positive antibody test, and not be counted and graphed as new.
If anything it helps lower the death rate down to even closer to a statistical zero than it is now.
There definitely are tests available which can get the job done well. Of course nothing can be 100% accurate but there are tests which have sensitivity/specificity values that are strong enough to offer high confidence. Not saying that increased testing and the resulting data, which we actually need and should expect, can't be used by the fuckers for their agenda of "muh mail-in balloting" and "muh shutdown" but don't act like there are no tests available which diagnose properly. Here's some validation studies for a Utah-based small speciality test manufacturer that has some of the cheapest PCR tests on the market: http://codiagnostics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CODX-Logix-Smart-COV19-Performance-April-2020.pdf.
They really should start using the damn saliva tests. Those are so much more accurate and less invasive.
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks they use the super invasive sinus swab to make sure people get the virus.
FDA is moving at snail's pace with Emergency Use Authorization on a couple saliva tests I've been keeping my eye out for. The NIH is also supposed to have a program dubbed 'RADx' for ramping up production of some of the most promising testing solutions out there. I'm sure they're on it but the fact that they do not communicate any updates combined with the federal agencies less than flattering record for efficiency leaves me frustrated.