This is not merely a technical error. States have set quantitative guidelines for reopening their economies based on these flawed data points.
And there you have it for anyone who still cares.
The important take-away from this article is that the CDC is up to its usual bag of tricks. It just changed language on its website from stating that only viral tests are used in its figures to omitting all reference to the type of tests being used, but states:
“These data are compiled from a number of sources,” the new version read. The text strongly implied that both types of tests were included in the count, but did not explicitly say so.
The CDC loves to change parameters for its own purposes.
The article then goes on to show the reason for this change in language. The data had become more favorable showing about 1.5 million positive test results. After the CDC language change, the positive rate plummeted to 52,429.
The language change also concerns Ashish Jha, the K. T. Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, because antibody tests typically have a lower percent-positive rate than viral tests. Blending the two types of tests will dramatically drive the positive rate down – it also makes them both “uninterpretable.”
Why would the CDC purposely want to drive the positive rate down?
Could it be to propel the “viral mania” and fear seen in everyone’s eyes? Could it be used to support the continuing draconian measures and the push for an unsafe vaccine which is riddled with problems but can track everyone’s movements?
The article also states that places where the rate of new infections aren’t falling are among the states blending the two types of testing.
Keep that fact in mind when you look at the maps reporting case counts.
But wait! The fun doesn’t end. The CDC also quietly changed MORE wording on its website overnight. It changed its fear-mongering about how the virus spreads to admitting that it doesn’t appear to spread easily from surfaces, objects, or animals. https://bgr.com/2020/05/20/coronavirus-spread-cdc-says-transmission-from-surfaces-is-unlikely/
What’s sad is the damage is done and most will never hear this update.
A great explanation of the two tests is given in the first article as well as the comparison of viral testing that’s used to understand how many people are getting infected, vs. antibody testing which looks back at the overall picture.
But this is all assuming the tests are accurate in the first place, which they are not.
- The most common COVID-19 test, the nasal swab test, has an accuracy rate as low as 70%.
- Regarding antibody testing, a report by more than 50 scientists found that only three out of 14 antibody tests gave consistently reliable results, andeven the best had flaws.
- Accuracy data only become available in a database after the FDA connects real-work experiences, but after “approval” has already been given. In other words, you are the Guinea Pig providing the “real world data.”
- 95% of the data comes from manufacturers while only 5% come from doctors and patients. See the problem?
- WHO and CDC use PCR tests. False negatives can occur up to 30% of the time. Please see: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/ The creator of the PCR states it was NEVER meant to diagnose patients but was created for manufacturing and research purposes. See also: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/16/does-the-coronavirus-exist/ David Crowe explains the PCR test. Let’s just say there’s a lot of room for error.
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/20/cdc-crimes-possible-sherman-provisions-clayton-acts-violated/ Put an end to CDC/NIH corruption and write your authorities.