Coronavirus testing probably inaccurate
Virus testing by Criss Cross
The CDC program immediately raises two problems: why bother testing for a virus if it isn’t really causing human disease; and what kind of test is being done?
In this article, I’m focusing on the type of test, and whether it’s accurate, even if you assume the coronavirus is causing disease.
Reading through CDC literature (see also here), I believe the two most prevalent US testing methods are: antibody, and PCR.
Antibody tests are notorious for cross-reactions. This means factors in no way relevant to a given virus can make the test read positive. In that case, the patient would be falsely told he “has the coronavirus.” But it gets worse. Traditionally, antibody tests reading positive were taken as a good sign for the patient: his immune system had contacted a germ and defeated it. Then, starting in 1984, the science was turned upside down: a positive test was, astoundingly, taken to mean the patient was ill or would soon become ill.
The PCR test (which requires excellent technicians who will not make any number of possible mistakes) takes a tissue sample from a patient which might contain a tiny virus particle(s) much too small to be observed—and blows it up many times, so it can be seen. However, the test says nothing reliable about HOW MUCH virus is in the patient’s body. Why is that important? Because millions and millions of replicating virus in the body are necessary to even begin talking about actual illness. A positive PCR test, nevertheless, will be taken to mean the patient “has the epidemic disease.” —An even deeper issue: where is the PRIOR PROOF that the PCR is testing for a virus that actually causes disease?