The Incredible and Scary Truth about COVID-19 Tests

25 April 2020

David Crowe, a Canadian independent researcher of infectious disease models and the host of a weekly radio show in Canada called The Infectious Myth, has analysed 33 of the PCR tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration and concluded they all have serious limitations, producing both false positives and false negatives.

The-Incredible-and-Scary-Truth-about-COVID-19-Tests

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kevin Corbett
Kevin Corbett
1 month ago

At last an incisive analysis to underpin consensual and ethical medical treatment. Anyone offered or thinking of undergoing the ‘test’ is still at liberty to read this data beforehand.

Sascha Anya
Sascha Anya
1 month ago

Once again, David Crowe is reminding the public that infectious disease and virus testing by PCR is rigged from the start, and what’s worse, is it has been for decades. David’s clear-eyed summation of the many pitfalls of employing PCR for viral testing is insightful and honestly, it’s horrifying. David exposes the deeply flawed PCR tests that lack of specificity, that are designed with arbitrary cut-off off points, and offer random results of false-positives / false-negatives not to mention the tests are impacted by a plethora of pre-existing heath conditions, recent vaccinations, et al.

The test kit disclaimers are clear that these tests should not be used to detect any thing or diagnose disease. Data collected is so baseless as to be meaningless for virtually all purposes intended, and poses a great risk to the public specifically because often medical treatment decisions are based on them. It is high time that viral PCR tests be prohibited. When a “pandemic” can be defined by, and the fate of nations can be decided based on the “evidence” supplied by these tests, one shudders to think of what is next. An utter sham and a fraud. Leaders need this information NOW. Please share widely.

Puddin Tane
Puddin Tane
25 days ago
Reply to  Sascha Anya

Thanks to the author & commenters

I wish to pose a question which I have yet to see fully addressed: what is our confidence in these RNA sequences being used as targets?

I do understand from this article (& elsewhere) that the discrete RNA base pair sequences upon which these tests are based are fully available- I’ve seen them myself

But what do these sequences mean? How do we know they belong to this so-called Covid-19? In other words, I’m not sure I’ve seen evidence that this Covid-19 has indeed been robustly isolated

Working on memory from the initial New England Journal of Medicine article from China, the authors specifically stated they had not fulfilled Koch’s postulates. They identified 3 patients- without stating what about those 3 patients stood out as unusual. From those patient’s pulmonary aspirates RNA was identified which they claimed was homologous (I seem to recall at a level of roughly 85%) with some other known coronavirus. But what does that really mean? I have not seen this addressed

Or to be more blunt- how would we know if these RNA sequences are not simply a hoax? I don’t mean the RNA sequences don’t exist; I’m willing to grant that they do. But how do we know these sequences is really from a coronavirus? How much sequence homology is required & who makes that decision?

And if we accept these RNA sequences are from a coronavirus, how do we know it is truly novel? And if it is novel, how do we know it is leading to actually clinical symptoms? Would that not require each patient testing for Covid-19 also be tested for the ~20 other testable causes of viral pneumonia, etc.?

It seems to me an expert analysis addressing these points would be helpful. Thanks for your consideration

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial
3
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x