Here is the product insert from a test someone gave me, which I never used. Oddly enough, the instructions spell out what you would do (or not do) if you wanted to ensure a negative test. This product was tested on 172 people and was found by the manufacturer to be 93% accurate.
Read the CORMAN DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT online. A professional peer review of the protocol that lays out the parameters and procedures of ALL SARScoV2 RT PCR tests. The team did a point by point review of the molecular chemistry of the testing protocol and concluded, "the test is so flawed on a molecular and methodological level as to be useless as a medical diagnostic test". The protocol left out the amino acid markers that differentiate between viral microorganisms (no positive nor negative controls). No specificity. It also reads only viral fragments due the fact when the protocol was developed in late 2019 early 2020 the only samples available were synthetic SARScoV, not SARScoV2, from China. SARScoV2 hadnt been isolated at that time. Thus the primers in the protocol were bunch to one side and dont read the entire viral length. Additionally, the amplification rate recommended, 45 Ct, renders a 97 percent false positive rate. The typical rate used in the US and European labs, 35 to 40 Ct, still giving massive false positives. High sensitivity. This protocol was adopted without proper peer review the day after it was submitted by both the WHO and Eurosurveillance, and later by the FDA, CDC and other public health agencies.The team found 10 'errors' that they assert renders the test useless, yet it is the most widely used test across the planet. Used to create an illusionary worldwide pandemic out of a ENdemic that overwhelmingly effects specific medical profiles. Steve, check it out. PU.
We don’t all go around and test for every disease and pathogen that we may or may not have been exposed to…….unless we are sick and being diagnosed by a doctor…….for possible causes for our condition and symptoms.
Theoretically we could all get nasty stuff just going to a public toilet, so we had all better get tested every week (tongue in cheek) to make sure we don’t have: AIDS, HIV, hepatitis, gonorrhoea, Etc. Etc…………….and we don’t for the flu either. We need to get real.
I still can't find any text book proof that asymptomatic infection is a real possibility. It is talked about but I don't believe it is a verified possibility. It is illogical that viruses could be infecting a large number of cells and result in no symptoms. Without a large number of cells infected there can't be enough virus to spread to others. Does anyone have information showing asymptomatic spread is well documented and explaining the process by which it can take place?
All this testing craziness is strictly a phenomenon of the 2020 propaganda phase of this century, that we are still in by the way. There is really absolutely no need to do any of it, unless of course you own stock in the companies that make them, and you want to get rich along with Fauci, Pfizer, or Moderna executives etc... But for the rest of us, there is no need! None at all!!👵😇
I've heard that SARS-CoV-2 is "the virus" and that Covid-19 is "the disease". However, the WHO said that there should be no conflation between the two. Covid-19 is not a "disease". Rather, it is a series of clinical symptoms that used to be associated with influenza. One is a virus, and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The problem with that definition and that the expectation is that majority of people who test positive using the PCR method (which test for traces of SARS-CoV-2), are not ill at all. That's how they came up with the term "asymptomatic carrier". That means I may test positive and be "asymptomatic", and the reason for no symptoms is that I'm not actually sick at all.
I'm more concerned with false positives than negatives. The one antigen test I researched two months ago STATED IN THE PRODUCT INSERT that it was 60% false positives when used on asymptomatic people. Are ANY of these tests suitable for use considering overall seropositivity is so low?
Consider that false positives will be a constant number, and true positives will vary depending on true positivity, so when few people are truly positive the false positives are a greater percentage of the overall positive results reported by each test.
False negatives are bad too, but I don't care as much about them because they don't falsely boost case rates; actually I kind of like false negatives right now (but I'd prefer 100% accurate tests)
In the past he would have said 'Get out of my office you nutter'
Today he says 'Sounds like covid19'
[Obviously this is a joke, no one gets to see their Doctor any more as they are all busy earning extra cash injecting people with a dangerous gene therapy shot].
Question for those who have refused the death jab and must now subject themselves to regular testing to keep a job: What kind of tests does your employer allow? Does your employer pay for the cost of testing?
Question for anyone suspicious of the nasal swabs: Everyone reading Steve's Substack knows the dangers of the injection, but has anyone read anything credible about the potential dangers of the swab? If so, could you link any relevant information? Thanks.
Here is the product insert from a test someone gave me, which I never used. Oddly enough, the instructions spell out what you would do (or not do) if you wanted to ensure a negative test. This product was tested on 172 people and was found by the manufacturer to be 93% accurate.
https://flowflexcovid.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ACON-Labs-Flowflex-US-COVID-19-Home-Test-Consumer-Insert-En.pdf
Read the CORMAN DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT online. A professional peer review of the protocol that lays out the parameters and procedures of ALL SARScoV2 RT PCR tests. The team did a point by point review of the molecular chemistry of the testing protocol and concluded, "the test is so flawed on a molecular and methodological level as to be useless as a medical diagnostic test". The protocol left out the amino acid markers that differentiate between viral microorganisms (no positive nor negative controls). No specificity. It also reads only viral fragments due the fact when the protocol was developed in late 2019 early 2020 the only samples available were synthetic SARScoV, not SARScoV2, from China. SARScoV2 hadnt been isolated at that time. Thus the primers in the protocol were bunch to one side and dont read the entire viral length. Additionally, the amplification rate recommended, 45 Ct, renders a 97 percent false positive rate. The typical rate used in the US and European labs, 35 to 40 Ct, still giving massive false positives. High sensitivity. This protocol was adopted without proper peer review the day after it was submitted by both the WHO and Eurosurveillance, and later by the FDA, CDC and other public health agencies.The team found 10 'errors' that they assert renders the test useless, yet it is the most widely used test across the planet. Used to create an illusionary worldwide pandemic out of a ENdemic that overwhelmingly effects specific medical profiles. Steve, check it out. PU.
Most antigen test show 96-98% false positives.
These test practices: PCR and RAT are all stupid.
We don’t all go around and test for every disease and pathogen that we may or may not have been exposed to…….unless we are sick and being diagnosed by a doctor…….for possible causes for our condition and symptoms.
Theoretically we could all get nasty stuff just going to a public toilet, so we had all better get tested every week (tongue in cheek) to make sure we don’t have: AIDS, HIV, hepatitis, gonorrhoea, Etc. Etc…………….and we don’t for the flu either. We need to get real.
You are right on the money Charles, and I am positive Mr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, would wholeheartedly agree as well!😇👵
These tests are producing false positives galore. Just stop getting tested EVERYONE.
Only an asymptomatic idiot gets tested.
Caution: Abbott rapid home test BinaxNOW contains fatal poison.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3fHqwyBFrG7K/
Steve Kirsch, Have you done any research on or ever posted anything about shedding and if not do you plan too?
I still can't find any text book proof that asymptomatic infection is a real possibility. It is talked about but I don't believe it is a verified possibility. It is illogical that viruses could be infecting a large number of cells and result in no symptoms. Without a large number of cells infected there can't be enough virus to spread to others. Does anyone have information showing asymptomatic spread is well documented and explaining the process by which it can take place?
All this testing craziness is strictly a phenomenon of the 2020 propaganda phase of this century, that we are still in by the way. There is really absolutely no need to do any of it, unless of course you own stock in the companies that make them, and you want to get rich along with Fauci, Pfizer, or Moderna executives etc... But for the rest of us, there is no need! None at all!!👵😇
I've heard that SARS-CoV-2 is "the virus" and that Covid-19 is "the disease". However, the WHO said that there should be no conflation between the two. Covid-19 is not a "disease". Rather, it is a series of clinical symptoms that used to be associated with influenza. One is a virus, and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The problem with that definition and that the expectation is that majority of people who test positive using the PCR method (which test for traces of SARS-CoV-2), are not ill at all. That's how they came up with the term "asymptomatic carrier". That means I may test positive and be "asymptomatic", and the reason for no symptoms is that I'm not actually sick at all.
If I walk about in a normal fashion,why would l need a test to see if l had a wooden leg?
I'm more concerned with false positives than negatives. The one antigen test I researched two months ago STATED IN THE PRODUCT INSERT that it was 60% false positives when used on asymptomatic people. Are ANY of these tests suitable for use considering overall seropositivity is so low?
Consider that false positives will be a constant number, and true positives will vary depending on true positivity, so when few people are truly positive the false positives are a greater percentage of the overall positive results reported by each test.
False negatives are bad too, but I don't care as much about them because they don't falsely boost case rates; actually I kind of like false negatives right now (but I'd prefer 100% accurate tests)
I went to see my Doctor.
I said 'I'm ill'.
He said 'What are your symptoms?'
I said 'I'm perfectly healthy'
In the past he would have said 'Get out of my office you nutter'
Today he says 'Sounds like covid19'
[Obviously this is a joke, no one gets to see their Doctor any more as they are all busy earning extra cash injecting people with a dangerous gene therapy shot].
Question for those who have refused the death jab and must now subject themselves to regular testing to keep a job: What kind of tests does your employer allow? Does your employer pay for the cost of testing?
Question for anyone suspicious of the nasal swabs: Everyone reading Steve's Substack knows the dangers of the injection, but has anyone read anything credible about the potential dangers of the swab? If so, could you link any relevant information? Thanks.