The governor said he felt confident in the results of a negative test that was taken hours after he tested positive while being screened to greet President Trump.

Video player loading
Gov. Mike DeWine tested negative for the coronavirus hours after a positive rapid-result test had prevented him from welcoming President Trump to Ohio on Thursday, a whiplash reversal that reflected the nation’s increasingly complex state of testing.
In a high-profile example of a new testing frontier, Mr. DeWine first received an antigen test, which allows for results in minutes, not days, but has been shown to be less accurate. The positive result came as a “big surprise,” said Mr. DeWine, a Republican, who had not been experiencing symptoms other than a headache.
Later on Thursday, he was tested using a more standard procedure known as polymerase chain reaction, or P.C.R., an accurate but time-intensive method that requires samples to be processed at a laboratory. His wife, Fran, and staff members also tested negative.  (See link for article)
And this is where testing remains…..
Important excerpt:
Public health experts say that widespread, rapid testing is necessary for quarantining and contact tracing to effectively control the virus.
This, not the virus, should frighten us.
They have been and will continue to use abysmal testing to take peoples’ freedoms away.

Are you infectious if you have a positive PCR test result for COVID-19?

August 5, 2020

Tom Jefferson, Carl Heneghan, Elizabeth Spencer, Jon Brassey

PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear.

During our Open Evidence Review of oral-fecal transmission of Covid-19, we noticed how few studies had attempted or reported culturing live SARS-CoV-2 virus from human samples.

This surprised us, as viral culture is regarded as a gold standard or reference test against which any diagnostic index test for viruses must be measured and calibrated, to understand the predictive properties of that test. In viral culture, viruses are injected in the laboratory cell lines to see if they cause cell damage and death, thus releasing a whole set of new viruses that can go on to infect other cells.

We, therefore, reviewed the evidence from studies reporting data on viral culture or isolation as well as reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), to understand more about how the PCR results reflect infectivity.  (See link for article)



In one of the best reviews I’ve read on PCR testing so far the authors point out the fly in the ointment: few studies have cultured live SARS-CoV-2 virus from human samples.  This is a big deal.  BIG.  Without injecting live viruses into cells lines to determine infectivity, it’s all theoretical.  And I’ll add one more to that: these viruses must be not only isolated but purified from all else.  In the case of COVID, to my knowledge, this has not been done.  According to David Crowe, all they have is pieces and parts they are labeling “virus.” This is an important distinction and quite fundamental.  For a great read on this:

Back to the paper on PCR testing.Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Tom Jefferson, Elizabeth Spencer, Jon Brassey, Carl Heneghan medRxiv 2020.08.04.20167932; doi:

The authors reviewed 14 studies that they labeled of “moderate quality” due to being inadequately sized, lack of protocols, standardized methods and reporting and reporting bias. They hit on some interesting issues like time of testing in relation to symptom severity, viral shedding, etc.  They also pointed out that time of testing is important because:

The lower the cycle threshold level the greater the amount of RNA (genetic material) there is in the sample. The higher the cycle number, the less RNA there is in the sample.

What does this mean?

This detection problem is ubiquitous for RNA viruses detection. SARS-CoV, MERS, Influenza Ebola and Zika viral RNA can be detected long after the disappearance of the infectious virus.

In other words, the test is picking up RNA material but the patient isn’t infected any more. The authors point out that this material can linger for weeks in the body.

The authors then sum it up by stating that the 14 studies provided limited data of variable quality of PCR results and are unlikely to predict viral culture from human samples.  They state:

Insufficient attention may have been paid how PCR results relate to disease. The relation with infectiousness is unclear and more data are needed on this.

And the most important point:

If this is not understood, PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.
BINGO!  This is exactly what is happening.

For more:

Right here in Wisconsin, Governor Evers is pushing ‘contact tracing’ as part of the Badger Bounce-Back Program based on faulty testing:  DHS is coordinating the amount of tracers with the number of projected tests and positive cases with the goal of having 1,000 statewide tracers.

PCR testing:


I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics

Rasnick’s advice for people who want to be tested for COVID-19.







%d bloggers like this: