Medical tests have false positives. Mammograms, pregnancy tests, blood tests, etc., all have false positives. Imperfect tests continue to be used because the benefits outweigh the risks. For example, early warning of cancer outweighs the negative consequences of a false positive such as unnecessary worry or the need for further testing. The PCR test creates false positives, too, but is this a minor inconvenience or a serious problem?
There are numerous estimates about the false positive rates of the PCR test. The New York Times has reported that the test can have as high as a 90% false positive rate:
“In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said.”
As you can see from the quote above, the false positives are related to the “cycle threshold.” The cycle threshold varies from lab to lab and from test manufacturer to test manufacturer and it is generally not recorded along with the positive or negative test result. Therefor, it is impossible to know the actual false positive rate by looking at the old testing data.
There is an argument to make that the false positive rate is 100%. Never has a positive case been verified by taking a sample from the PCR-positive patient and showing the existence of the virus in the patient. So, we have no idea if a positive result is meaningful and therefor all positives could be false-positives.
Even the CDC seems to have no idea of the false positive rate, at least they don’t state it in their own documentation about the PCR. This is a bullet point from a section called Limitations in the CDC document CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
False-positive test results are more likely when prevalence [of disease] is moderate to low.
This seems to be an admission that they don’t know the false positive rate. One could flip this statement to say that false positives are less likely when disease prevalence is high. When stated this way it is easier to see the absurdity of the statement. Why? If disease prevalence is universal – meaning everyone has the disease – they can have an even higher confidence in a positive test result, only there would have been no reason to test anyone! It’s all circular logic.
Speaking of circular logic … how would one know whether disease prevalence is high or low without some other method besides the PCR test to determine disease prevalence? There is no other method, making this is circular logic to make one’s head spin! It is also bad science.
According to the paper False positives in reverse transcription PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 the false positive rate might be about 2.3%. (This is derived from a statistical analysis looking at the False Positive Rate of many data sets from pre-Covid PCR testing of other viruses. See page 2.)
Let’s start with that number to do a quick analysis of where things can go wrong because of false positives. Let’s use a nice even number of 1,000 people who are “covid-positive.” Even using the conservative number of 2.3% false positives we are left with 23 of them having to quarantine, possibly lose income, be left worrying that they may infect their family, etc. But if we use the New York Times figure of 90% you have 900 people suffering the negative consequences of a false positive. And, since there has never been a confirmation that a PCR-positive person actually carries a novel coronavirus, it could easily be that all 1,000 people are false positives and nonetheless having to quarantine, lose income, etc.
If this isn’t absurd enough, consider the fact that people who are “true positives” – the ones who are really “covid-positive,” whatever that may mean – have in no way been demonstrated to be infected with anything or infectious in any way and even mainstream reports acknowledge this. People are just blindly following the leader as he marches straight towards the precipice.
It is time for a new direction before we plunge toward a dark fate. Fortunately, numerous scientists agree. The Great Barrington Declaration has been signed by over 11,000 scientists and over 30,000 medical professionals who think it is time for more reasoned approaches. Consider signing the document as a concerned citizen.
Sources:
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
False positives in reverse transcription PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2
CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
Related Topic: