Here again is the abstract from the Chinese government where they talk about the false positives in the Corona virus testing.
And since then, they have announced that they will no longer count asymptomatic people who test positive as positives.
Here is the situation we are in now: Our government and our medical system are relying on a test for which the inventor of the test said it could not be used the way they are using it. And he won a Nobel Prize for inventing it. His name was Kary Mullis, and unfortunately, he died 5 months before this crisis began. So, they are doing this arcane test where they are testing one partial strand of RNA which they found, or think they found, inside you, and doing a shitload of stuff to it, in which they are changing it in composition and multiplying it in volume a billion times, and then, if the product they create fluoresces, they're saying it's the Corona virus.
But, even if it is, and I say there is no guarantee because they are only looking for 100 nucleotides out of 30,000 and maybe a similar virus has those 100 but is not the Covid-19, but since they only started with one RNA,how can they claim to know that an infection is present when they only established the presence of one single, solitary virus?
And, it's especially troubling when the person is asymptomatic, especially since they have given themselves an out, a talking point, that some people are "asymptomatic carriers who get infected but don't get sick." And the thing is: they don't even know that; they are just assuming it based on thinking that the test is infallible, that it can NEVER produce false positives.
And, it doesn't just apply to positives either. What if the patient has only mild cold symptoms? Remember, it could just be a mild cold. It's one thing to say that extremely sick old people are going to succumb to it because they're extremely sick and old, but what explanation is there for the variance among individuals where some get moderately sick from it while others don't get sick at all? I've heard their excuse for why children aren't getting it, that children get colds a lot which is protecting them, but I'm not buying that either because I think that a child who DOESN'T get sick a lot, with colds or anything else, is going to withstand a pandemic better than a sickly child who comes down with colds, one after another.
It is medical lunacy to claim that sickliness protects, and yes, I know about the vaccines and the antibodies. But, are you aware that even the CDC admits that many who took the flu shot this season came down with it? They're saying that the current flu shot is showing only 37% effectiveness against influenza-A. It means that for every 3 unvaccinated persons who come down with influenza A, 2 who were vaccinated are coming down with it. They're also saying that so far this season, 92 American children and adolescents have DIED from the flu. I wonder how many of them were vaccinated. They haven't said that none of the children who died were vaccinated, Don't you think they would have if that were the case?
And compare that to zero children deaths for corona virus. They are not giving us any credible reasons for the susceptibility and outcome variance among people. They are just spewing talking points, and those talking points serve mostly to defend the test that they are using to define the disease, regardless of symptoms and outcomes. And to me, that is nonsense.