When one submits to covid testing, one presumes that the test is accurate. After all, why test if the covid test doesn't accurately measure for the presence of covid-19? Results have consequences. A positive test can result in loss of work time, loss of playing time for athletes, loss of travel privileges, loss of entry to business establishments, public health policy formulation, etc. The fact is, the covid test is now foundational to what happens in our lives and how our society functions. We are instructed ad nauseam to get tested. Essentially, "in covid test we trust" has replaced "in God we trust." So the question that should be asked is: How do we know if the covid-19 test is accurate or not?
There are two specific measures that determine whether any given test is accurate or not. The most important measure is test validity. According to Wikipedia, "test validity is the extent to which a test (such as a chemical, physical, or scholastic test) accurately measures what it is supposed to measure." As pertaining to the covid test, it is said to be valid if it accurately measures for the presence/absence of SARs CoV-2.
The other measure of whether a test is useful or not is its reliability. A reliable test refers to how dependably or consistently a test measures a characteristic. If a person takes the test again, will he or she get a similar test result or a different result? A test that yields similar results for a person who repeats the test is said to measure a characteristic reliably. As pertaining to the covid test, it is said to be reliable if it repeatedly and consistently measures for the presence or absence of SARs CoV-2.
Given these two measures, how does the covid-19 test stack up?
In terms of reliability, the covid-19 test is notorious for its unreliability. One segment of the population that is frequently tested are professional athletes so they are a good indicator of whether the covid test is reliable or not. If an athlete tests positively on one day, then he or she can be expected to also test positively again within a short time frame after that. However, that appears not to be the case.
“It’s been a crazy experience, kind of a roller coaster if you may, where I get the news late (Saturday) night that I tested positive,” Ursua said.
Ursua was tested again for COVID-19 on Sunday and received a negative test on Monday morning. Now, he’ll take a third test to find out if he can rejoin the Seahawks at training camp.
“How the league is running things is right after you test a positive, you immediately do two tests,” Ursua explained. "If you get two negatives then it was a false positive test, but if you get one positive out of the next two then you know you got to have that 14-day quarantine kind of deal.
Ursua said he was extremely shocked when it was revealed he tested positive on the first test, noting his isolated living conditions.
“We’re not exactly like the bubble but we kind of treat everything as if it is,” Ursua said. “Our food is delivered to us, we only get to go to the facility and come back to the hotel. We do all of our meetings here at the hotel. They try to keep us out of restaurants, out of closed off areas, so they’re doing a great job.
“So when I got the news I was like, man, I was the first one on the Seahawks to get it and the only one so far, but I guess I’ve been hearing about how there’s a lot of false positives out there so I was just crossing my fingers hoping that everything would be okay.”
Hmm...since Mr. Ursua was so isolated, how did he test positive? Moreover, if the covid test is reliable, why are a total of 3 tests necessary to determine a positive result? Does that make any sense to you in terms of the supposed reliability of the covid test? Do you know of any other disease that presents as asymptomatic much of the time despite a test saying that you have the disease?
In terms of the validity of the covid-19 test, again we have a problem. All covid-19 tests utilize a lab technique called PCR (polymerase chain reaction) invented by the late chemist, Dr. Kary Mullins, for which he won a Nobel prize. This technique when used in covid testing uses a person's swab sample and multiples that sample via PCR amplification. A person's sample is multiplied exponentially in the lab according to a certain threshold level and if the presence of SARs CoV-2 is detected at that particular threshold, then a person is considered to be positive for covid-19. A glaring problem is that the covid test manufacturers all utilize different threshold levels in their products. So for example, one might test positive using a covid test that utilizes a threshold of 45, versus testing negative using another covid test from a different manufacturer which utilizes a threshold of 40. There is no threshold consistency between manufacturers of the covid tests.
The other problem is that both Mullins and Fauci have declared that the PCR technique is useless for diagnosing any disease beyond a certain threshold level.
Doesn't that make you wonder why we have to take covid-19 tests in the first place? If the covid test is invalid and unreliable, this whole process is untenable and we are the unwitting victims. For additional information, see my earlier post entitled "Straight From the Horse's Mouth."
The FDA acknowledges a reliability problem.
The FDA acknowledges problems with the covid-19 test but of course, you don't see that in the news headlines.
How widely were these tests used? The FDA says healthcare providers and “organizers of large testing programs, such as on college campuses,” employed them.
The CDC acknowledges a validity problem.
First, the test was never granted full FDA approval. Instead, it was permitted for use under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). In other words, it was an experimental diagnostic tool.
As it turns out, the covid-test, like the vaccine is experimental but that was not widely known so long lines of people waited to get tested not realizing that they were subjecting themselves to an unproven, experimental test.
So, ask yourself this question.
If you're going to trust any expert about whether experimental PCR-based covid tests are good or not, wouldn't you trust the opinion of the guy who invented it?
Unfortunately, Dr. Mullis, who invented PCR and was in opposition Dr. Fauci, died in 2019. He's no longer around to elaborate but fortunately, as we have seen, we already have his opinion on the record.