It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
PCR is a far more reliable method, and is in fact the gold standard.
The New York Times put out an extensive article on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and how they determine who has COVID-19 or not. The PCR tests are widely used to search for small segments of genetic material that look like COVID-19. If it finds it, the test is positive.
But there is a major problem…
The sensitivity levels of the PCR tests have been set too high. The New York Times reports that up to 90% of people testing “positive” carried barely any virus.
In other words, people may have had COVID-19 a while ago but certainly didn’t have it now. Or the test may have detected some naturally occurring genetic segments that looked like COVID-19 but weren’t.
To put things in context, if the medical community set appropriate sensitivity levels resulting in “real” positives for COVID-19, the COVID-19-related genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be anywhere between 100-fold to 1,000-fold the levels that are being used today.
Nuts… that’s how far off the settings are.
So why is this relevant to the CDC’s revelation that only 6% of the stated COVID-19 deaths were actually caused by COVID-19 and nothing else?
Because the states and the hospital systems use the PCR data when claiming a COVID-19-related death. If the PCR data comes back and says “positive,” then COVID-19 is claimed as a comorbidity. And we now know that up to 90% of those “positive” tests may in fact be “negative.”
The charts used so widely in by the media to scare us with the spikes in new COVID-19 cases… they mean nothing at all.
originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: tanstaafl
It clearly states that the person had had medical issues and treatment years previously that were a contributing factor.
You must live a very sheltered life if you live to those kind of extremes.
I'm assuming you pay the same logic to all things with inherent risk?
Smoking and drinking and driving or flying or any of those other things that can result in death or injury?
originally posted by lazy broken-quoter, aka: nonspecific
a reply to: tanstaafl
So how many people have died as a direct result of a nasal swab globally during the covid 19 pandemic?