Covid mafs is hard
Yes, ladies and gentlemen – and others, we are terribly inclusive here – math is hard, especially hard it seems, for wanna-be totalitarian dictators. Just the other day we were discussing the efficacy of face masks and noted that Covid tests are totally unreliable. Elon Musk got four tests in ten minutes which resulted in two positive and two negative results. The reason for this is the way the tests are set up and math. Now an appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.
Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.
Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.
This in Portugal, mind, not famous as a bastion of cutting edge anything (well, OK, cork and Port).
In their ruling, judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés referred to several scientific studies. Most notably this study by Jaafar et al., which found that – when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.
The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable. Governments and private labs have been very tight-lipped about the exact number of cycles they run when PCR testing, but it is known to sometimes be as high as 45. Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated anything over 35 is totally unusable.
You can read the complete ruling in the original Portuguese here, and translated into English here. There’s also a good write up on it on Great Game India, plus a Portuguese professor sent a long email about the case to Lockdown Sceptics.
Our old nemesis (not really, Karl, we like you fine) Karl Deninger at Market Ticker dives into the math:
Folks, this is not open to question. The man who invented PCR said it was utterly unusable as a diagnostic tool for this reason. The original purpose of PCR was to take a relatively small amount of some DNA and multiply it for research purposes because growing DNA in cells the “hard way”, then extracting and purifying it from that culture takes a long time and preventing contamination during the culture process is difficult while doing it in a lab with a chemical process is, by comparison, much faster. It’s a very interesting technology and when used to “grow” things quite valuable. But it cannot be used as a diagnostic, especially not when cycled 30 or more times, because it will pick up whatever happens to match its tag pattern and amplify it without regard to whether that item was actually produced by a current, live infection in the person sampled.
In other words you could be completely immune to Covid19, someone who had Covid but has recovered and has no live virus in their body coughs in your vicinity, they expel a small number of non-infectious pieces of virus from when they were infected, one of those pieces of RNA gets sucked into your nose when you inhale and then, before you sneeze or otherwise snot it out you get swabbed. That piece of RNA which is not infectious and did not come from you as a result of your harboring and shedding infectious virus in the first place is then amplified four billion times and as a result you are given a “positive” test result.
But you’re not sick and you never will become sick because you were never exposed to live, infectious virus.
That it took this long for a court to rule that 2 + 2 = 4 is an outrage.
That we’re stuffing swabs up people’s noses and calling them positive for a virus when they have no symptoms of illness whatsoever is nothing more than random chance in terms of being correct. In fact it’s more-likely than not that in the absence of symptoms such a test will call you positive when in fact you are not because the conditions of the test are rigged in such a way that you are far more-likely to have non-competent pieces of virus in your nose than competent complete (and thus infectious) virus absent symptoms of illness.
This is also why there have been times that people have swabbed various things that are not humans including plant materials and other things yet all have come back “positive.” Viral debris is literally everywhere in the environment all around us yet it is not dangerous.
In other words, to be blunt, the tests and what we’re presenting to both individuals and the public are outrageous frauds.
Yes, mafs is hard, and worse, racist. Probably why the Donk “educational” establishment doesn’t teach it any more. But you sure get to know a lot about race and gender theory. You know, the stuff that really matters.