NFL Reveals How We Should Be Testing For COVID-19
For starters, there’s no clear “gold standard” setting for the PCR tests — labs calibrate them however they wish and don’t report calibration levels (or “cycle thresholds”) — to help us get an accurate picture of what’s really going on. Furthermore, a PCR result isn’t a useful metric absent the context of a clinical diagnosis.
As Schachtel puts it:
“Since the mad rush to ‘combat’ the novel coronavirus began six months ago, the FDA has been churning out emergency use authorization for coronavirus tests at an average of almost one approval per day. The insistence that everyone must be tested, on a regular basis, with or without symptoms, has created overwhelming demand for coronavirus testing, and an unintentional incentive to ‘find’ COVID cases, but the all-important oversight responsibility of vetting the accuracy of these tests has somehow fallen by the wayside. Now, many months into the pandemic, it’s become incredibly clear that the PCR tests are both unsuitable for determining a diagnosis, in addition to having parameters that are useless in determining infected individuals.”
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It was all laid out in a New York Times investigation which discovered that up to “90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus,” meaning, most people who have tested positive were not contagious and certainly not “infected” as we understand the term.
Read The Full Story: NFL Reveals How We Should Be Testing For COVID-19
