On January 20, 2021, not only was Joseph Biden inaugurated as President of the United States, but the WHO also made an extraordinary announcement.The 11-month mantra-like test call and recommendation turned out to be unfounded and unscientific, and completely meaningless. 2 weeks ago the WHO posted this on its site.
2021/January 20th.
www.who.int
“WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.WHO reminds IVD[1] users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
Interestingly, the WHO statement did not receive the expected publicity of the media. The headlines didn’t follow each other anywhere, there was no news on the TV every hour, not in the radio, not in the news.
However, WHO findings have not only diagnostic, but also legal and political implications at the global level. So far, all official government agency have considered the tests to be a positive test result, the same as an infection that posed an acute threat to their fellow human beings. Therefore, people were massively isolated from each other, regardless of any harm. The recent WHO communication is a clear resolution.
Accordingly, the following concepts must be distinguished:
- contaminated (test positive)
- infected, infectious (or likely to be clearly distinguishable depending on the viral load, based on the threshold of the PCR test).
An infected person is a person from whom a virus or other pathogen can be detected. However, an infected person does not become infected automatically. This is because the infected person is the one in whom the virus multiplies, and the infected person shows the characteristic symptoms. This only happens if the viral load is high enough (i.e., the PCR test still gives a positive result after a few doublings [below 20]).
If few viruses enter the body, the infection will fail. He who is not infected cannot infect the other person either. Because infectivity is a condition of infection. That is, one who walks the world without symptoms can be said with almost complete certainty that he does not pose a risk of infection to the other person. Isolation of a person based on a positive PCR test (with a high threshold = low viral load) and forced to wear a mask - lacks any scientific basis from which it follows directly that no legislation or regulation can be established on the results of PCR tests.
Thus, on January 20, 2021, the WHO legally repealed all epidemiological measures that were based on PCR tests and were not supported by other diagnostic methods. This cannot be stressed enough. Quarantine measures ordered solely on the basis of a positive PCR test shall be considered unjustified. Any closure or curfew that refers to the results of PCR assays is unfounded.
The legislature can no longer pretend not to know about the WHO decision.
It is also unreasonable and unconstitutional to declare all emergencies and epidemiological emergencies where they are referred to the results of PCR tests.
Legitimate measures can only be taken on scientifically sound grounds.
The New York Times publicized a same opinion by many virologist on August 29th. but who cares.
They said: Maybe up to 90% of those classified as fake-infected.
www.nytimes.com
2021/January 20th.
WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05
Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Date: 13 January 2021 WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2 Target audience: laboratory professionals and...
“WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.WHO reminds IVD[1] users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
Interestingly, the WHO statement did not receive the expected publicity of the media. The headlines didn’t follow each other anywhere, there was no news on the TV every hour, not in the radio, not in the news.
However, WHO findings have not only diagnostic, but also legal and political implications at the global level. So far, all official government agency have considered the tests to be a positive test result, the same as an infection that posed an acute threat to their fellow human beings. Therefore, people were massively isolated from each other, regardless of any harm. The recent WHO communication is a clear resolution.
Accordingly, the following concepts must be distinguished:
- contaminated (test positive)
- infected, infectious (or likely to be clearly distinguishable depending on the viral load, based on the threshold of the PCR test).
An infected person is a person from whom a virus or other pathogen can be detected. However, an infected person does not become infected automatically. This is because the infected person is the one in whom the virus multiplies, and the infected person shows the characteristic symptoms. This only happens if the viral load is high enough (i.e., the PCR test still gives a positive result after a few doublings [below 20]).
If few viruses enter the body, the infection will fail. He who is not infected cannot infect the other person either. Because infectivity is a condition of infection. That is, one who walks the world without symptoms can be said with almost complete certainty that he does not pose a risk of infection to the other person. Isolation of a person based on a positive PCR test (with a high threshold = low viral load) and forced to wear a mask - lacks any scientific basis from which it follows directly that no legislation or regulation can be established on the results of PCR tests.
Thus, on January 20, 2021, the WHO legally repealed all epidemiological measures that were based on PCR tests and were not supported by other diagnostic methods. This cannot be stressed enough. Quarantine measures ordered solely on the basis of a positive PCR test shall be considered unjustified. Any closure or curfew that refers to the results of PCR assays is unfounded.
The legislature can no longer pretend not to know about the WHO decision.
It is also unreasonable and unconstitutional to declare all emergencies and epidemiological emergencies where they are referred to the results of PCR tests.
Legitimate measures can only be taken on scientifically sound grounds.
The New York Times publicized a same opinion by many virologist on August 29th. but who cares.
They said: Maybe up to 90% of those classified as fake-infected.
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. (Published 2020)
The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.
Always better to kill small businesses, ruin people futures, strain/end relationships, increase alcohol/drug consumptions, turn neighbors against each other rather than have false negatives.