There are a lot of Asimov's "Hmm that's funny... 's in those stats. There is really no way to have all of those things be true and for the narrative to survive. What we can say is more than likely true: 1-Serology tests are AT BEST highly unreliable, which completely disqualifies them for drawing any significant conclusions. 2- PCR testing is AT BEST highly unreliable and when it doesn't correlate with unique clinical observations of illness is complete misleading trash (asymptomatic silent spread!!). 3- Whatever "it" may have been, it was neither deadly nor highly contagious in at least MOST situations, not even for the elderly (see also the Diamond Princess). 4- All those things being true, the "pandemic", wasn't. 5- there is no way to justify the measures taken, certainly not in hindsight, but also certainly 5 years ago because all those things were known 5 years ago.
Although I've said "origins" do matter (the origin of the story, if nothing else), as you've perceived, here I am trying to appeal to those who believe there was a sudden-spreading viral agent from somewhere. It's impossible have to look at a study like this - and the NYC v L.A. death trajectories - and NOT re-examine one's hypothesis.
We can't have it all ways, I'm afraid.
There is serious conflict between the propositions of various Dissenters that is being ignored or avoided for the sake of...I don't know what.
But it's 11 March 2025 and the anniversary of the fraudulent pandemic declaration. COVIDIANS vs. "Us" isn't moving the ball down the field.
(Admittedly, I may be standing on a different field!!) :)
"PCR testing is AT BEST highly unreliable and when it doesn't correlate with unique clinical observations of illness is complete misleading trash (asymptomatic silent spread!!). "
So much this-and still going on with regard to testing and nursing homes this past winter. If NO TESTS no one would think of "pandemic of deadly illness" EVER these past 5 years. Seriously. Been screaming about testing for 5 years. Almost from beginning when it was clear no symptom yet + test meant you were 'infected' and 'sick'.
FAR more pneumonias and RSV related deaths in my NH this past winter each month than supposed "height" of covid-yet not a PEEP from media. It was an "up" year for pneumonias etc-these things tend to go through cycles in LTC. Been doing this specifically in LTC for almost 10 years. Anyone with any objectivity will say same. Also Dec/Jan/Feb always have higher deaths.
Yep. I'll take it further: PCR tests were being used in nursing homes and hospitals for years leading up to - and in preparation for - the COVID Scam (at least in the U.S.)
I think people are still under the impression that PCR testing was a SARS-CoV-2 thing. Obviously, 2020 marked an unprecedented deployment of that procedure, but the tests were being used pretty widely - and "successfully" - for influenza...which is one reason we saw the increase in the proportion of pneumonia deaths being blamed on influenza virus.
I wonder how many of us have considered what it is, exactly, that is being measured in “covid serology”?
There a number of ways to approach the question, “Are there antibodies to something relevant to an illness in this patient’s blood sample?”
It’s not necessary to believe in germ theory for this question to be reasonable. Some people have antibodies to chemical adducts formed as a result of ingesting a drug which can give rise to reactive products which can bind to long-lived structural proteins. This is a new molecule which your body may recognise as foreign, prompting autoimmune attack. Antibodies might be a part of that.
If you wanted to investigate whether the individual was carrying such antibodies, you might synthesise in a lab some of the adduct and adhere it to the bottom of plastic, multi-welled plates. You could then add a sample of the patient’s serum, then wash the plate, then “develop” it by adding, for example, donkey-anti human antibodies to which a colour-generating molecule has been bound. When you’ve done the last step, allowing colour to appear, the amount of the colour is precisely measured using a spectrophotometer.
The important thing to note is that any such measurement is indirect. You can’t directly measure the amount of “antibody to the alleged virus”.
I don’t know what procedure is followed when doing the serology referred to here. I remember looking, a couple of years ago, for the original “methods paper” and not finding it. By this I mean an analogous paper to the one for the original PCR based test for the alleged virus (aka the Corman-Drosten paper). Given how widely serology has been used, it’s critical to understand exactly how what’s claimed to be able to measure “circulating antibodies to SARS-CoV-2” works. Pitfalls in the broad category of what are called “immunoassays” are legion. It’s very common to uncover cross-reactivity to things other than the nominal objective.
Without the methods paper, I tend to disregard any claims made about serology in this context. Unlike PCR, development and use of immunoassays is something I’ve done personally (they were considered quite new technology back then!). One thing is certain. These assays cannot be measuring antibodies to “SARS-CoV-2 virus”, because that’s an in silico construct. It isn’t antibodies to “related coronaviruses” for the same reason.
Hi Mike. Thanks for your insights. Funny enough, the reason I pulled up the email from Beth and the study is because I was speaking with someone else about serology/AB testing for SARS-CoV-2, which I've come to regard as completely bogus.
I highlighted the findings from the LA nursing homes to demonstrate the absurd and contradictory propositions.
For methods, they say, "For SARS-CoV-2 testing, PHL used the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2, Hologic Panther TMA SARS-COV-2, or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2019 novel coronavirus reverse-transcription PCR assays. Serum or plasma samples were used by PHL for serologic testing. All serum samples were tested by using 2 distinct automated chemiluminescent immunoassays as part of an orthogonal algorithm to improve specificity and positive predictive value: the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 assay (conducted on the Abbott i1000SR instrument that tests for IgG antibody against nucleoprotein) and the Diasorin SARS-CoV-2 assay (conducted on the Diasorin Liaison XL instrument that tests for IgG antibody against spike protein). Participants were categorized as seropositive if either test yielded a positive result."
They reference the CDC's early AB test guidelines.
I agree SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could not have been measured and I fail to see how retro-testing stored sample for antibodies would be possible, given the incomplete and specious nature of SARS-CoV-2.
There are a lot of Asimov's "Hmm that's funny... 's in those stats. There is really no way to have all of those things be true and for the narrative to survive. What we can say is more than likely true: 1-Serology tests are AT BEST highly unreliable, which completely disqualifies them for drawing any significant conclusions. 2- PCR testing is AT BEST highly unreliable and when it doesn't correlate with unique clinical observations of illness is complete misleading trash (asymptomatic silent spread!!). 3- Whatever "it" may have been, it was neither deadly nor highly contagious in at least MOST situations, not even for the elderly (see also the Diamond Princess). 4- All those things being true, the "pandemic", wasn't. 5- there is no way to justify the measures taken, certainly not in hindsight, but also certainly 5 years ago because all those things were known 5 years ago.
Well-captured, and I agree.
Although I've said "origins" do matter (the origin of the story, if nothing else), as you've perceived, here I am trying to appeal to those who believe there was a sudden-spreading viral agent from somewhere. It's impossible have to look at a study like this - and the NYC v L.A. death trajectories - and NOT re-examine one's hypothesis.
We can't have it all ways, I'm afraid.
There is serious conflict between the propositions of various Dissenters that is being ignored or avoided for the sake of...I don't know what.
But it's 11 March 2025 and the anniversary of the fraudulent pandemic declaration. COVIDIANS vs. "Us" isn't moving the ball down the field.
(Admittedly, I may be standing on a different field!!) :)
"PCR testing is AT BEST highly unreliable and when it doesn't correlate with unique clinical observations of illness is complete misleading trash (asymptomatic silent spread!!). "
So much this-and still going on with regard to testing and nursing homes this past winter. If NO TESTS no one would think of "pandemic of deadly illness" EVER these past 5 years. Seriously. Been screaming about testing for 5 years. Almost from beginning when it was clear no symptom yet + test meant you were 'infected' and 'sick'.
FAR more pneumonias and RSV related deaths in my NH this past winter each month than supposed "height" of covid-yet not a PEEP from media. It was an "up" year for pneumonias etc-these things tend to go through cycles in LTC. Been doing this specifically in LTC for almost 10 years. Anyone with any objectivity will say same. Also Dec/Jan/Feb always have higher deaths.
Yep. I'll take it further: PCR tests were being used in nursing homes and hospitals for years leading up to - and in preparation for - the COVID Scam (at least in the U.S.)
I think people are still under the impression that PCR testing was a SARS-CoV-2 thing. Obviously, 2020 marked an unprecedented deployment of that procedure, but the tests were being used pretty widely - and "successfully" - for influenza...which is one reason we saw the increase in the proportion of pneumonia deaths being blamed on influenza virus.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/yes-the-cdc-lies-about-flu-deaths
I wonder how many of us have considered what it is, exactly, that is being measured in “covid serology”?
There a number of ways to approach the question, “Are there antibodies to something relevant to an illness in this patient’s blood sample?”
It’s not necessary to believe in germ theory for this question to be reasonable. Some people have antibodies to chemical adducts formed as a result of ingesting a drug which can give rise to reactive products which can bind to long-lived structural proteins. This is a new molecule which your body may recognise as foreign, prompting autoimmune attack. Antibodies might be a part of that.
If you wanted to investigate whether the individual was carrying such antibodies, you might synthesise in a lab some of the adduct and adhere it to the bottom of plastic, multi-welled plates. You could then add a sample of the patient’s serum, then wash the plate, then “develop” it by adding, for example, donkey-anti human antibodies to which a colour-generating molecule has been bound. When you’ve done the last step, allowing colour to appear, the amount of the colour is precisely measured using a spectrophotometer.
The important thing to note is that any such measurement is indirect. You can’t directly measure the amount of “antibody to the alleged virus”.
I don’t know what procedure is followed when doing the serology referred to here. I remember looking, a couple of years ago, for the original “methods paper” and not finding it. By this I mean an analogous paper to the one for the original PCR based test for the alleged virus (aka the Corman-Drosten paper). Given how widely serology has been used, it’s critical to understand exactly how what’s claimed to be able to measure “circulating antibodies to SARS-CoV-2” works. Pitfalls in the broad category of what are called “immunoassays” are legion. It’s very common to uncover cross-reactivity to things other than the nominal objective.
Without the methods paper, I tend to disregard any claims made about serology in this context. Unlike PCR, development and use of immunoassays is something I’ve done personally (they were considered quite new technology back then!). One thing is certain. These assays cannot be measuring antibodies to “SARS-CoV-2 virus”, because that’s an in silico construct. It isn’t antibodies to “related coronaviruses” for the same reason.
Hi Mike. Thanks for your insights. Funny enough, the reason I pulled up the email from Beth and the study is because I was speaking with someone else about serology/AB testing for SARS-CoV-2, which I've come to regard as completely bogus.
I highlighted the findings from the LA nursing homes to demonstrate the absurd and contradictory propositions.
For methods, they say, "For SARS-CoV-2 testing, PHL used the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2, Hologic Panther TMA SARS-COV-2, or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2019 novel coronavirus reverse-transcription PCR assays. Serum or plasma samples were used by PHL for serologic testing. All serum samples were tested by using 2 distinct automated chemiluminescent immunoassays as part of an orthogonal algorithm to improve specificity and positive predictive value: the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 assay (conducted on the Abbott i1000SR instrument that tests for IgG antibody against nucleoprotein) and the Diasorin SARS-CoV-2 assay (conducted on the Diasorin Liaison XL instrument that tests for IgG antibody against spike protein). Participants were categorized as seropositive if either test yielded a positive result."
They reference the CDC's early AB test guidelines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200601014524/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html
I agree SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could not have been measured and I fail to see how retro-testing stored sample for antibodies would be possible, given the incomplete and specious nature of SARS-CoV-2.