Can We Trust the COVID-19 Test? What You Need to Know About ELISA and RNA Tests
By Cassius K
An authoritative disguise can be used to try and overpower
the logical capabilities of people, as they are being told how to deal
with the COVID-19 situation. Facts are being projected out to the world
and a collage of predictions and statements being made by figures with
larger than life personas. Country to country, the results in a pandemic
situation would probably look a whole lot different. We saw
draconian measures take place in China. Italy is also
desperately trying to contain the spread.
If this gets worse, everybody will be met with a personal choice.
Will they decide for themselves what measures they want to
take, what they want to listen to, and who they will believe? Or will
they do whatever they are told without following the steps of logic? If a
person takes the route of asking “why” at every turn, every time the
authorities want them to do something, issues could certainly arise for
them.
How do we ascertain the accuracy of a COVID-19 test?
A glaringly obvious question will inevitably be asked by many: how do we know a test for the virus will be accurate?
What if the test is wrong, and somebody is quarantined or
forcibly treated when they don’t even have COVID-19? What if the test is
wrong and somebody with the virus unknowingly goes out into the world,
travels, goes to work, and infects others?
Many would be surprised to learn that flaws exist in virus
detection. Some say these are massive flaws, in multiple techniques from
ELISA tests to RNA detection.
The ELISA test can give false positives
One simple, standardized test for the detection of a virus is known as the
ELISA test, which stands for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Most cases of the false-positive ELISA tests seem to be a
result of technical problems, such as mouth swabs being improperly
handled.
However, plenty of stories can be found online about people who were horrified to discover they had diseases such as
HPV,
HIV,
Hepatitis C,
West Nile Virus or
herpes. Then, eventually, they learned that they were, in fact, clean, shocked by a false result.
“Herpes is a lifelong infection, but Lauren had it only for
six tumultuous months. Or rather, she believed she did, after a request
for sexually transmitted disease testing returned a positive result.
But after weeks of Googling, chatting with members of online herpes
forums, and reading scientific papers, she asked for a different test,
which eventually confirmed her suspicion — her herpes diagnosis was
wrong.” (
source)
Imagine if you started taking dangerous antiviral drugs as a result of a false-positive ELISA test.
Do authorities have enough trust with the people of their
area, to perform COVID-19 tests properly? Will people take it at face
value and say “ok, the test says I have it, now I will follow your
instructions?”
Will additional testing be required to fully confirm a
person is infected? Perhaps the occasional test will be wrong due to
mishandling, and it will make people more skeptical. It’s possible that
more fundamental problems could exist within the realm of virus
detection that is even less understandable to the layperson.
Technically the ELISA test simply detects an antibody
response. A specific, detectable antibody is said to be produced when a
certain virus infects the body. Are people willing to take the accuracy
of this test at face value?
This field of science certainly is complicated, and those
with understandable skepticism must wade through a complex series of
logical steps to follow.
What if some chemical agent caused the body to produce antibodies that misleadingly trigger the ELISA test?
It has been suggested that inflammation-triggering substances, even alcohol, could throw off the accuracy of an ELISA test.
What about the RNA test?
To find out if people have a virus, there is also the potential for
an RNA test, which is considered to be more accurate.
Typically the blood of an individual is obtained for an RNA
test, and then using a process known as a polymerase chain reaction
(PCR), an estimate is made for how much of the virus is present in the
bloodstream. They call it a “viral load,” which refers to the amount of a
virus that is detected in the blood.
Again an uncomfortable gap between the medical community and the population seems to emerge when following this chain of logic.
The danger resulting from a person being falsely declared positive is multifaceted.
What if you tested positive, and in the quarantine area you actually got infected by someone in the vicinity?
What if a person has a weak immune system, drinks an
unusual amount of alcohol, and then sneezes next to a TSA agent at the
airport? Perhaps they would be detained, tested for the virus, and
falsely declared positive.
On a more conspiratorial note, what if specific,
“undesirable” individuals were dosed with agents, to specifically give
them an antibody response capable of producing a false positive, just to
put them in quarantine?
If you’re reading this, you probably would think twice
before accepting some mandatory medical treatment for the virus.
Whatever they try to inject people with en masse, it would be wise to
harbor suspicion. There is hardly a large NGO, charitable organization,
medical authority or pharmaceutical company that could be considered
free of a shady history.
These are the possibilities that should circulate through
the mind of a skeptical, survival-oriented individual. People who know
how to survive the world don’t take everything at face value.
Then there are the false negatives.
The first batch of tests sent out by the Centers for
Disease Control was flawed, resulting in inaccurate testing. This caused
the United States to
miss its window for containment.
The CDC failed to follow guidelines laid out by the World Health
Organization and developed its own test. Unfortunately, that test was
faulty, putting the nation weeks behind in detected cases.
Who stands to benefit?
An incomprehensibly massive sum of money is circulating
among people with power in this world, as it is being “allocated” to
fight the virus from country to country.
With all this money, all this power in the mix, people can
be certain that shady dealings will be concocted. It’s like a precise
chemical equation for greed.
It is being reported in the mainstream that the Zuckerberg and Gates charities both
helped sequence the COVID-19 genome, possibly influencing the creation of the more accurate RNA test.
An employee of the Zuckerberg Chan Initiative
tested positive for
the virus this week. The West Coast and Pacific Northwest seem to be
areas of focus so far in this limited outbreak, with Silicon Valley and
Seattle both in close proximity to it.
Ironically Bill Gates
warned the
world that a global flu pandemic could kill over 30 million people
almost 3 years ago, resembling the Spanish Flu. People who follow the
topic no doubt remember that. Gates is currently trying to position
himself as an authoritative figure in this crisis,
calling it a “once in a century pathogen.”
It’s important to take note of the tone present in the
mainstream coverage of the virus’s spread. It’s objectively true that
when you notice people of this magnitude and power all putting their
focus on a topic, it means something to their agenda. Therefore it’s
going to be probably something the general population has to understand
and deal with.
One thing is for certain. Authority figures will continue trying to steer people a certain direction during this time, and
they do want to
crush dissenting opinions.
About Cassius
Cassius K is a writer from North Highlands, California.
Be the first to comment
Blogger's note:
subterrnews.blogspot.com does not send cookies, or collect any information on
those using the blog. However, the blogspot is on google, and google may
collect information, and send cookies. Many of the links that we connect
to do not send out cookies or collect information, but some do. You are
keying in to this blog, and you have agreed to this.
The views expressed in the articles
do not necessarily represent the opinions of this blog. They are the views, and opinions of the
author(s) of the article.
