15 Comments

The PCR test has all along been the foundational fraud of the Plandemonium. Take any other given year not within the nonsensical Coronamania period and deploy a generally very non-specific gene assay empanelled test lab process, rig the positivity differential, overclock the sample reproduction and you would manufacture the same curves.

Even in the absence of any pathogen, novel or otherwise.

#themediaisthevirus

Expand full comment
May 23, 2023Liked by Tim Ellison

The official narrative

Expand full comment
May 23, 2023Liked by Tim Ellison

EVERYTHING IS A LIE

Expand full comment
Nov 26, 2023·edited Nov 26, 2023Liked by Tim Ellison

Thanks for posting this exegesis of the 'PCR test scam'. I have been railing against use of the PCR "Test Positive Rate" (TPR) in decision making, and for more than three years now nonstop. I have tried with no success whatsoever to get answers from my state's health department (Minnesota) regarding how the Completely Synthetic Index named TPR (test positive rate) can be used to reliably improve the health of groups of people. Excluding issues of weird PCR test cycle rates and foggy criteria for what a positive PCR test can mean in a given patient, etc.etc.etc. my beef always has been this one: That the denominator (i.e. the total number of new PCR tests performed in some given week, for example) will always be potentially, if not actually, SKETCHY -- for the simple reason that a policy regarding "whom to test" could be (and was in my state) so easily altered at different times as the pandemic rolled along. To wit: If lots of healthy folks get PCR-tested there will be generated a lot of negative PCR tests (DUH) in the TPR denominator. In contrast, if mainly sick folks showing up in ERs and clinics are the vast majority of patients getting PCR tested (which was official policy here for many months) then the *only* conceivable value of the resulting test outcome data that I can fathom would have been differentiating folks who are "sick with COVID" from people who are "sick because of ordinary influenza or other respiratory ailments prevalent at the time" --- and literally nothing more ! It was maddening for me, but revealing and stunning, to hear the second highest official in our state's vaunted Department of Health say one day (on live local television), "Please, please come in right now and get tested so that we can wash out all those positives". Note the five last words in that quote. The context here should be noted because it is so relevant: Local unrest and very deep citizen unhappiness with the mandated lockdowns of businesses had led our Minnesota government to formally enact a modified policy that said such lockdowns would be "eased" just as soon as our state had "achieved a test positivity rate" of less than 5 percent. Just think about what was going on here: A given TPR value for some week's worth of testing could be easily manipulated to showcase either "improvement" relative to past values, or as a "continuing harbinger of doom" merely depending on how the memberships of the compared TPR denominators had been accrued. If we tested "all comers" in any population we could surely see a "lower TPR value" than if we tested only (or mostly) those folks who staggered into ERs or clinics looking like hell and feeling like crap when there was ongoing COVID spread. The appalling ignorance of our state leadership in this matter was more than a little frightening to me. To date, I have received zero answers from "local authorities" despite the fact that I have asked via telephone calls or emails sent many times for guidance regarding the meaning of TPR measurements as they have been used in our state. As a medical doctor for nearly 50 years now (and also as a Senior Fellow of both the IDSA and SHEA) I note with chagrin but a nearly panicky sadness that we continue to see TPR values posted by the State of Minnesota on a regular basis. This practice is also going on in other states. My diagnosis -- what a load of bullshit.

Expand full comment

"The true accuracy of tests for COVID-19 is uncertain

Unfortunately, it's not clear exactly how accurate any of these tests are. There are several reasons for this:

We don't have precise measures of accuracy for these tests — just some commonly quoted figures for false negatives or false positives, such as those reported above. False negative tests provide false reassurance, and could lead to delayed treatment and relaxed restrictions despite being contagious. False positives, which are much less likely, can cause unwarranted anxiety and require people to quarantine unnecessarily.

How carefully a specimen is collected and stored may affect accuracy.

Because these tests are available by EUA, the usual rigorous testing and vetting has not yet happened, and accuracy results have not been widely published.

A large and growing number of laboratories and companies offer these tests, so accuracy may vary.

All of these tests are new because the virus is new. Without a long track record, assessments of accuracy can only be approximate.

We don't have a definitive "gold standard" test with which to compare them."

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/which-test-is-best-for-covid-19-2020081020734

Expand full comment