The New York Times (NYT) rarely publishes anything without an agenda. As the paper of record, it sets a fake news foundation for the whole media. They quote the Times, then someone quotes them, and look, it must be true. So, whassup? The NYT is questioning the PCR test and false positives.
As opposed to just false, which describes much of the Times reporting on Trump.
And not for nuttin’ ‘Paper of Record” but the ‘Grok had an article on this back in September. It was probably (unlike your piece today) flagged by Facebook as misleading, lacking context, or simply false.
“..the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests – are known to give False Positives in as many as 9 out of 10 instances, (see Study Finds Immunity to Coronavirus Linked to the Common Cold ).”
I also found published among these pages PCR test failures in Vermont, from July. A cluster of Coronavirus positives, followed by lockdown panics, that were unnecessary. In the end, 77% of the tests were wrong.
But surprise!, most of the 23% that were right were wrong. Those tests sense so little viral load as to be non-communicable – as with the super-majority of those under 20 who ‘test’ positive without symptoms. Nothing to see hear but it looks good on the unflattened (curvy) #fakenews casedemic graph.
The testing has been crap since day one, to borrow a turn of phrase from BrrrokO’bama, but the pictures are too scary to put away. And the PCS test #fakedemic is not new or news. So, why would the NYT’s bring it up now?
In an article titled, “Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be” there is a new worry. That all this fake virus business is making it harder to find people who are sick (at risk?) and need treatment.
The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.
Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time.
These experts are all amazed at the way this has been (mis) handled but that doesn’t mean less testing. Some say (I guess we can call them #teamboottleneck) think we need more. Why? What if the people with little to no viral load get more.
If we want to find them we need to test them again. But we know that’s garbage as well.
The (PCR) tests themselves are wholly unreliable for medical diagnosis because they cannot offer a binary – yes or no – answer to any question. They may show the presence of a very, very small part of a piece of matter (a particular set of nucleotide) that may, or may not be from the COVID virus. But as to proving someone is actually ill – not possible!
This looks to me to be a make-work program for lab techs. And, just like elections, you keep coming back until you get the result you want.
Or, are we actually suggesting that a virus that 99.96% of those “infected” will survive (and not just because 90% of them never really had it) still has some political purpose?
After the vote-by-mail-fraud thing delivers.
The Times piece offers several potential paths to that end and we should look forward to it being breathlessly referenced if the Democrats suddenly discover we’re not in danger anymore. Imagine that. All this time it was a faulty test. Let’s blame Trump.
That will catch a few Republican by surprise. We’ll be sure to quote them when the time comes.