Friday, January 22, 2021

WHO Finds These Covid Testing Edict Changes Interesting?

While reading this morning...

I stumbled across this from the WHO

"WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

The greater the number, the higher the CT's (cycle thresholds), the lower the viral load- All my readers know that!

We've talked about this issue several times since March of 2020. A couple of flashbacks below.  

THC Interview: David Crowe Coronovirus/Covid19- The Risks, Testing and Treatment

 In August : Was the PCR Test Meant To Detect A Virus?

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information."

An aid for diagnosis. Clearly the PCR test is NOT, nor has it ever been a diviner of diagnosis. Despite the presentation.

diviner- forecaster, seer or prophesier also god like force for diagnosis

In order that there be a correct diagnosis the result must be considered in combination with multiple other factors such as patient history, clinical observation etc

Clearly the PCR test is NOT the ultimate authority. Though it's been deigned as such. So why do these tests continue to set the tone or standard for and justify every crime against humanity that is being presently enacted?

More questions?

Let's go back a bit further to when the WHO officially altered their status on the PCR test. Check screenshot below from WHO  document titled-  Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Specifically the corrigenda of this document-  

Read what was deleted and then subsequently inserted on September 11/20 

Delete: Virus neutralization assays are considered to be the gold standard test for detecting the presence of functional antibodies. These tests require highly skilled staff and BSL-3 culture facilities and, therefore, are suitable for use in routine diagnostic testing. 

Insert: Virus neutralization assays are considered to be the gold standard test for detecting the presence of functional antibodies. These tests require highly skilled staff and BSL-3 culture facilities and, therefore, are unsuitable for use in routine diagnostic testing. 

That's quite a change. The gold standard for detecting the presence of functional antibodies went from being suitable for use to be unsuitable for use. Why? Was the WHO intending to make it more difficult, for some reason, to measure the presence of functional antibodies in an individual, as well as in the populace?  In order to downplay the idea of naturally occurring social immunity (herd immunity) being much more widespread then the vaccine pushers would like?

Anybody have any thoughts or ideas on why this change might have occurred?


 

Related:

We Had the Vaccine the Whole Time- A So Called Vaccine Awaiting a So Called Pandemic?


 

4 comments:

  1. I saw that amendment earlier today, Penny, because I've been searching in vain for a WHO notice about the PCR test which I had earlier located on their site on Jan 17/21 but which no longer seems to exist:
    https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users

    I had paraphrased it recently in a comment on my site, saying: The WHO actually now seems to agree with the doubters and recommends its use only as an adjunct to other clinical signs, symptoms, contacts, etc.
    https://www.yayacanada.ca/home/ford-thinks-hardship-is-good-for-ontarians#comments

    But now the WHO link is no longer valid, and I'm kicking myself that I didn't download the page when I had the chance. It seems the WHO isn't its own boss. As soon as they say something that makes too much sense, they get told to bury it.

    If you haven't already seen this article from June of last year, you might find it useful:
    https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/censored-covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless-everything-weve-been-told-about-covid-is-a-hoax/

    I don't like to think that Kary Mullis didn't die from natural causes last year. But it sure was convenient considering what he said very clearly about the PCR test.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc0Kysti6Kc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The WHO is, in my opinion, agreeing with the doubter/questioners. They are confirming that which has been said all along.
      I'll check the links
      thanks

      Delete
  2. Hi penny I’m still off line and awaiting the arrival of a new modem as ours suddenly blew in the middle of the night last Wednesday. Re the PCR rest—I believe the WHO is doing a verbal dance to avoid the consequences of all the class action lawsuits that have been filed against it. They have been served and the longer they keep up the criminal behaviour after service the greater the damages can be awarded to the victims.
    Gc

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS