Do We Actually Have a Test that Can Accurately Identify a COVID-19 Virus?

Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Tests that can accurately test for the COVID-19 virus have been a hot topic since the pandemic started.

I have previously highlighted the pharmaceutical infighting with each other over the lucrative COVID-19 test market, where it is admitted that some tests, in this case anti-body testings, are notoriously unreliable. See:

Roche CEO: COVID19 Tests “Not Worth Anything – Two of us could do it Overnight in the Garage”

This begs the question: do we actually have a test that can accurately identify a COVID-19 virus?

It is a controversial question, and yet the official numbers of COVID-19 deaths are broadcast daily, like the score of a sports game, and uniformly accepted as accurate, never questioning the accuracy of these numbers.

If the question does come up in the corporate media, the general assumption is that the true numbers are probably much higher.

Where’s the proof?

Mary Holland, former Professor of Law at NYU and current General Counsel for the Children’s Health Defense, just published an article:

Coronavirus and Infection Control: What’s Going on with Testing?

She quotes Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist and research scientist based in Connecticut who has been producing molecular tests for diseases and conditions for many years, including Lyme disease and human papilloma virus (HPV) infection. Dr. Lee trained and taught in some of the world’s most prestigious institutions and has published scores of scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals.

She writes:

Dr. Lee is a hero to those concerned about HPV vaccine safety because he proved that the HPV vaccine contained HPV DNA fragments, something that Merck and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied. These fragments were part of the reasons for so many adverse events. His research made the FDA come clean about the presence of the DNA in the vaccine, but the agency continued to deny its significance and harmful potential.

The need for accurate coronavirus testing is imperative. It is especially critical in nursing homes and institutions caring for elderly patients, so that false-positive patients are not housed with true-positive patients. It’s also essential to ensure that staff in direct contact with highly susceptible patients be infection-free.

Dr. Lee has been working diligently to overcome the roadblocks in coronavirus testing – only to hit new ones at the very agencies responsible for ensuring the pandemic’s end. Dr. Lee wrote to the WHO and to Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to explain why the current tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA are generating false positives and negatives.

He explained that a two-phased test would “guarantee no-false positive results” based on his research and published work from Japan.

He offered to retest the residues of any patient samples that have generated questionable results, using a highly sensitive nested reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test followed by DNA sequencing of a unique 398 bp N gene amplicon for confirmation.

Dr. Lee asked to be in contact with the coronavirus teams at the WHO and NIH so that he could assist them to ensure highly accurate tests, especially for elder care facilities where the need is greatest for extreme accuracy.

Given the specificity of his letter, with its charts on DNA sequencing, and its significance for preventing disease spread, it is almost unbelievable that as of April 27, Dr. Lee has received no response from either the WHO or NIH. He has similarly reached out to the Connecticut Department of Public Health to receive patient samples for further validation testing. The Connecticut Department has stopped responding to Dr. Lee’s emails and phone calls.

Please read Dr. Lee’s March 22 letter and decide for yourself if these agencies are serving the public interest or if perhaps they are serving competing or corrupt interests instead. (Read the Full Article here.)

Investigative reporter Jon Rappoport, a veteran journalist with over 38 years of experience, has also addressed the issue of accurate testing.

Rappoport makes no apologies for claiming that the COVID-19 virus may not even exist, and he has very compelling evidence to back up his claim. If you have not yet listened to his 3-part podcast on this subject, it is well worth your time. Even if you do not agree with his conclusions, you may learn some new facts you did not previously know. See:

Independent Journalist of 38 Years Questions Official Narrative of COVID19 – Warns of U.S. Becoming a Medical Police State

Regarding testing for a COVID-19 virus, he echoes much of what Dr. Sin Hang Lee is questioning:

The claim of having discovered a new virus (COVID-19) is wrong (unproven).

And the claim that the main diagnostic test (the PCR) can determine whether a person is sick or is going to get sick is also wrong (unproven).

What seems to be true in the lab is not sufficient in the real world.

The first experiment would confirm or deny the accuracy of the PCR diagnostic test. The experiment would reveal whether this widespread test for COVID-19 can actually predict illness in the real world, in humans, not in the lab.

This experiment has never been done. It should have been done before the PCR was ever permitted to make claims about THE QUANTIY OF VIRUS that is replicating in a patient’s body.

Quantity is vital, because, in order to even begin talking about whether a virus can cause disease, millions and millions of virus must be actively replicating in a patient’s body.

Here is the experiment. Assemble a group of 500 volunteers, some sick, some healthy. Take tissue samples from them, and give the samples to PCR technicians. The technicians will never see or know who the 500 volunteers are.

The techs run these samples through the PCR. For each sample, they report which virus they found, and how much of it they found.

“In patients 34, 57, 83, 165, and 433, we found a great deal of the following disease-causing viruses.”

Now we un-blind those specific patients. By the test results, they should all be sick. Are they? Aren’t they? Then we would know. We would know how accurate and relevant the test is in the real world.

Of course, this is not the end of the experiment. The same samples should have been given to a whole other set of PCR techs to run. Did they come up with the same results the first set of PR techs did?

Several new groups of 500 patients each should be enlisted, and still more sets of lab techs should repeat the experiment, ending up with confirmation or rejection of the initial findings. This is the way the scientific method is supposed to work.

In the absence of this experiment, the quantitative PCR must be looked at as a rogue hypothesis that should never have been foisted on the public in the first place. It should never be used as the basis for determining case numbers of any disease.

In the “COVID-19 crisis,” all case numbers derived from the PCR should be thrown out.

The second vital experiment concerns the discovery of a new virus—in this case, COVID-19.

First of all, there is no lab procedure that can climb inside the human body in real time and record the active replication of millions of virus. The closest you can come involves the use of electron microscopy.

Suspecting the existence of a new disease-causing virus, researchers should line up, at the very least, several hundred people who seem to have the new disease. Tissue samples should be taken from them. Using correct steps of isolating-purifying-centrifuging these samples, specimens of the results should be examined and photographed under the electron microscope.

In every one of the several hundred photos, do the researchers see many identical particles of a virus they’ve never seen before; and do the researchers see that these many particles are the same from photo to photo?

If so, and if more than one group of researchers independently carrying out this procedure on the patients’ tissue samples achieves the same result…then, this is as close as you can come to saying you’ve discovered a new disease-causing virus.

Other researchers with other large groups of patients should attempt to replicate the above findings.

This vital experiment has never been done in the case of COVID-19. Not even close. Therefore, researchers can’t make a true claim to have discovered a new disease-causing virus.

In the absence of the two vital experiments I’ve described in this article, all you’re left with, concerning a single “COVID-19” pandemic and a single new cause, are: anecdote, rumor, gossip, conjecture, speculation, bad science, and lies.

Plus the horrendous damage from all the consequences of lockdowns based on those lies. (Read the Full Article Here.)

Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com.

Order Here!

Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.

In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.

One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.