How to fake a epidemic. Step 1 fake the test.

The HIV test was also fake and based on bad science. It’s a way to drive huge amounts of dollars into vaccine makers and hospitals.

DPH said the affected patients were originally tested between June 15 and July 17. A total of 144 tested positive and 90 were discovered to be false positives. The state has reported the flaw to the manufacturer and to the federal Food and Drug Administration. In a written statement, the agency said the exact cause of the false positive results is still being investigated. – from AP

That’s a genomic test. The antibody tests which are now what most people are using is even worse, triggering positive if you’ve ever been exposed to the common cold.

Antibody tests one week after first symptoms only detected 30% of people who had COVID-19. Accuracy increased in week 2 with 70% detected, and was highest in week 3 (more than 90% detected). Little evidence was available after week 3.

Worse, most tests were developed without using humans at all to confirm their accuracy – “Clinical evaluations, assessing performance of a test on patient specimens, vary among manufacturers. The FDA prefers the use of “natural clinical specimens” but has permitted the use of “contrived specimens” produced by adding viral RNA or inactivated virus to leftover clinical material. Ordinarily, test-performance studies entail having patients undergo an index test and a “reference standard” test determining their true state”

Results from IgG/IgM tests three weeks after symptoms started suggested that if 1000 people had antibody tests, and 50 (5%) of them really had COVID-19 (as we might expect in a national screening survey):

– 58 people would test positive for COVID-19. Of these, 12 people (21%) would not have COVID-19 (false positive result).

Most participants were in hospital with COVID-19, so were likely to have more severe disease than people with mild symptoms who were not hospitalised. This means that we don’t know how accurate antibody tests are for people with milder disease or no symptoms.

More than half of the studies assessed tests they had developed themselves, most of which are not available to buy. Many studies were published quickly online as ‘preprints’. Preprints do not undergo the normal rigorous checks of published studies, so we are not certain how reliable they are.

This is very bad because they never tested accuracy using people in the REGULAR POPULATION.

In another study, this time on mask effectiveness, the CDC got an odd result. The typical rate of asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 was estimated to be 40% by the CDC in mid-July, but asymptomatic infection rates are reported to be higher than 80% in settings with universal facial masking.

Now, the question is, are these FALSE POSITIVES in EIGHTY PERCENT OF PEOPLE ???? That’s a frightening truth. It only got published because scientists were too dumb and lost in their own dogma to realize the other way to interpret the data! Rather than “asymptomatic infection” in 80%, it’s much more likely these were FALSE POSITIVES to a CRAPPY TEST USED TO ENSLAVE US and DIVERT MONEY TO THE TEST MANUFACTURERS HOSPITALS and VACCINE COMPANIES.

These tests are so inaccurate as to be utter frauds. They use it to put people on ventilators, murder people, and cha-ching a quick $60,000.00 dollars. Billions have been given out to hospitals and vaccine manufactures over an epidemic that NEVER HAPPENED.


By SUSAN HAIGHJuly 20, 2020

Scientists at Connecticut’s public health laboratory say they’ve discovered a flaw in a manufacturer’s testing system for the coronavirus that’s used by labs around the country. So far, it’s resulted in 90 people – mostly residents of Connecticut nursing homes and assisted living facilities – recently receiving false positive tests.

State public health officials are now reviewing whether nursing home residents who received false positive tests were grouped with other residents with accurate positive tests, given the state’s recommendation to cohort nursing home residents who test positive for COVID- 19

“We don’t know that yet,” said Josh Geballe, Gov. Ned Lamont’s chief operating officer, noting that a team from the state’s Department of Public Health has been reaching out to every clinician responsible for those individuals, as well as the facilities where they live, and compiling data on the situation.

Meanwhile, Dr. Deidre S. Gifford, the state’s acting public health commissioner, said her agency is also reaching out to labs throughout the state to see how many of them use the testing platform manufactured by Thermo Fisher Scientific.

Yale epidemiologist and researcher Dr. Albert Ko, who co-chaired Lamont’s reopening advisory committee, said the particular test is being used in many commercial labs around the U.S. He said the employees at Connecticut’s state laboratory deserve “a shout-out” for discovering the flaw because it not only highlighted a potential problem in nursing home testing but “helped people all over the country who are using that test.”

But Ko noted that no test is perfect.

“In a state like ours, which is using large-scale, intense testing to keep down transmission, we are going to have false positives,” he said. “And that’s going to happen even in the best of tests because none of them are 100% positive.”

DPH said the affected patients were originally tested between June 15 and July 17. A total of 144 tested positive and 90 were discovered to be false positives. The state has reported the flaw to the manufacturer and to the federal Food and Drug Administration. In a written statement, the agency said the exact cause of the false positive results is still being investigated.

Any nursing home resident that had a false positive COVID-19 test result will be retested as soon as possible, DPH said.

DPH said the false positive test results were discovered by DPH laboratory scientists while examining previously positive samples to determine the feasibility of testing “pooled” specimens at the state lab. Dr. Jafar Razeq, director of the state lab, said staff were looking at the “background information” of the specimens and “we realized that these specimens shouldn’t have not been reported as positive.”