Are the COVID-19 Test Kits Designed to Produce False Positives (Plandemic)?
- Thread starter gl69m
- Start date
gl69m
Member
Post #24 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Post #24
Okay, now to correct some minor things, one I got wrong the other I was unsure of.
From post #19,
Quote:
Right now, I'm not sure that the control line can really rule out a “false positive” of say cross reaction with antibodies developed from infections from other coronaviruses (particularly the ones identified with common colds). It seems that if the control line does not show up, either there is no capture antibodies (goat anti-rabbit IgG) bound to the strip at the C line or would indicate that there might not be any or enough rabbit IgG-gold conjugate on the sample well membrane pad. If the latter was the case (no rabbit IgG-gold), how exactly would any of the lines C, G or M) develop at all? If the former (no capture goat anti-rabbit IgG) this would seemingly only affect the C (control) line anyway and the G and M lines could still develop if they had the capture antibodies on these lines.
Okay, the one thing I was getting wrong here was that the rabbit IgG-gold conjugate is not involved in producing the color in the G and M test lines at all. That is provided strictly by the 'SARS-CoV-2' recombinant antigens conjugated with colloidal gold (SARS-CoV-2 conjugates). Seemingly I guess, no other substrate-enzyme system seems to be involved in producing the burgundy colored lines, just the colloidal gold- conjugated to the SARS antigen and to the rabbit IgG.
This document can help explain that it is the total number of gold particles accumulated on the conjugated antigen or antibody that allows the visible naked eye visualization.
Designs, formats and applications of lateral flow assay: A literature review
November 2015
Designs, formats and applications of lateral flow assay: A literature review
This manuscript provides a brief overview of latest research involving the use of lateral flow assay for qualitative and quantitative analysis in diff…www.sciencedirect.com
Quote:
4.1. Gold nanoparticles
Quote:
Colloidal gold nanoparticles are the most commonly used labels in LFA. Colloidal gold is inert and gives very perfect spherical particles. These particles have very high affinity toward biomolecules and can be easily functionalized. Optical properties of gold nanoparticles are dependent on size and shape. Size of particles can be tuned by use of suitable chemical additives. Their unique features include environment friendly preparation, high affinity toward proteins and biomolecules, enhanced stability, exceptionally higher values for charge transfer and good optical signaling [37]. Optical properties of gold nanoparticle enhance sensitivity of analysis in LFA [38]. Sensitivity is a function of molar absorption coefficient and accumulation of gold nanoparticles on target molecule [13]. Optical signal of gold nanoparticles in colorimetric LFA can be amplified by deposition of silver, gold nanoparticles and enzymes [39], [40], [41].
(So this section gives some detection limits for gold nanoparticles)
Analyte
Label
Sample type
Detection Limit
Time of detection
Ref.
Ramos cells
Gold Nanoparticles
Blood
800 Ramos cells
15 min
[82]
Clenbuterol
Gold Nanoparticles
Urine
0.1 ng/mL
10 min
[127]
Aflatoxin B(1)
Gold nanoparticles
Pig feed
5 μg/kg
10 min
[129]
T-2 toxins
Gold nanoparticles
Wheat and oat
100 μg/kg
4 min
[130]
Salmonella enteritidis
Gold nanoparticles
10 CFU
[97]
So it looks like the Aflotoxin assay may be the most sensetive as in needing fewer nanogold particles bound (by mass, in nanograms {ng}, I think) to visualize a line compared to Clenbuterol or T-2 toxins, depending on the amount of sample needed pi-petted onto the kit I suppose. And accordingly the sensitivity detection limit is more sensitive or lower for Salmonella (only 10 cells or cfu) compared to the number of Ramos cells needed (800 cells) to visualize a line.
Second minor correction, from post #19,
Quote:
Now I will cover the section “Main causes of non-specific reactions” from my background information site (https://ruo.mbl.co.jp/bio/e/support/...-reaction.html). I will note that none of these “non specific reactions” or causes of false positives cover cross reactions of non-specific antibodies present in the specimen samples, except heterophilic antibodies (the rheumatoid factors I am not sure from this what their interference is) but this is not a reaction where those antibodies actually bind to the antigen (immunogen) itself but to a capture antibody Fab non antigen binding region (such as the anti human IgG capture antibody on the C and M lines of the pad of the Cellex kit strip). I will illustrate what I mean after pasting this sectional explanations:
Rheumatoid factors
Human blood may contain antibodies that react with human antibodies. A well-known example is autoantibodies commonly found in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. They are typically IgM-type immunoglobulins specific for the Fc fragment of human IgG and called rheumatoid factors (RFs).
All I really missed was that the center of the large IgM 5 pronged antibody molecular complex (which would appear to have 5 Fc antibody {like IgG style} segments all pointing toward the center), it's the center portion of the IgM molecule that thus binds to the Fc portion of another capture antibody that would be bound on the memberane. I suppose IgMs can also bind to the Fab portions of some other antibodies also.
Got those corrections out of the way, now let us examine changes to the Cellex kit pdf document.
Looking back at post #19 and #18 and the Cellex kit pdf, I noticed that this document has indeed been updated and is not the same as it was when I made post #19. I was thinking about the wording in the kit Composition that I thought about later that was throwing me off, here it is from post #18:
Quote:
says it has “Monoclonal Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antigen conjugated on the membrane.”
Now normally I would think of the wording “anti-” in front of another antigen molecule indicates in tests like these that this should be an antibody. Notice it says on the first page just below the first kit illustration below Test Principle,
Quote:
The anti-SARS-CoV-2 virus IgG, if present in the specimen, will bind to the SARS-CoV-2 conjugates.
This is the same wording it had in that section before and now too for that section on the later document. Now however this is what it states for this molecular component in the kit on the pdf now for the Composition section,
Quote:
Composition Conjugate Pad SARS-CoV-2 antigen coated gold particles
That is not the same wording as this- ““Monoclonal Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antigen conjugated on the membrane.”. “monoclonal” would also usually indicate it is an antibody, unless the word anti- is not in front of the antigen name. It also does not even indicate that it has nanogold coated or conjugated to it. Does this mean that the previous wording actually means that the kit membrane (in the sample well) actually has (or now only had?) the very antibody already on the pad that the test is supposed to be looking for in a blood sample??!! Could the rigging for a false positive in this kit really be that simple?
I wouldn't really think so, surly they were not aiming for 100% positive results were they? I wouldn't think they would rig it that completely, so that's why when I made post #19 that thought came to my mind briefly, but I dismissed it because I thought it just couldn't be that blatant, didn't want to come out sounding accusatory to that kind of degree. But maybe it is??
And further, to reiterate, all of these protein antigens are produced via plasmids (recombinant) in host culture cells (bacteria, yeast, animal or human) grown in flasks or special more flat looking cell culturing vessels for mammalian cells. And such antigen (proteins) can obviously be produced from designer DNA/RNA printed by artificial means and never having had to come from a real organism or virus at all, or a virus that may have never seen the outside of secret military lab before.
Well I doubt that the rigging will be that blatant now, and perhaps it was an error, previously, a typo. Obviously I can't really know for sure. But the thought occurred to me last few days that maybe some kits sent out were actually rigged that way, for instance, like whatever kits the President from Tanzania had tested with blind samples from non-human sources.
Tanzania Suspends Medical Chief After Leader Queries Virus Data
5/4/2020
Tansania testet Motoröl, Pflanzen und diverse Tiere auf Corona. Mit erstaunlichen Ergebnissen
May 7, 2020
I had the thought that kits shipped to other countries (especially targeted countries) may well be rigged in such a way, but a few samples did test negative so they are can't really be rigged for 100% positive, but probably most of them. Among the non-human samples they used were:
using President John Magufuli's words, some paraphrased, and his speech after naming the samples, is very very powerful, and gets to the heart, the crux of why people, everywhere, need to be very very wary and skeptical of everything we are presented with, with this 'covid-19'.
Quote:
We took car oil (we named it Jabil Hamza, 30 years old male) results were negative
Quote:
We took samples from the Jackfruit (Durian, we named it Sarah Samual 45 years old female) results were inconclusive
We took samples from the PawPaw (fruit) (we named it Elizabeth Ane, 26 years old female) results were positive, that it had corona. That means the liquid from the PawPaw is positive
We took samples from (a bird type) called Kware, results were positive
We took samples from a rabbit, results came back undeterminent
We took samples from a goat and the results came back positive
We took samples from a sheep and it came back negative
And so on and so on. So now when you see this you have taken samples and say they are human's and the results came back positive, that they have corona; that means all the PawPaws should be in isolation also. And when you take a goat's samples and they are also positive, that means all the goats that we have here by assumption, or maybe the goat with the sample which was taken should also be in isolation.
So when you notice something like this, you must know there is a dirty game played in these tests. That there unbelievable things happening in this country. Either the laboratory workers in there are bought by people with money, either they are not well educated which isn't true because this laboratory is used for other diseases. Either the samples which are brought in, because even the reagents are imported, because even the swabs are also imported. So it's a must that something is actually going on. Now even the PawPaws samples are positive, they have corona. So WHO should really do something big about these things, and even the goats have corona. And if they haven't realized that the corona effects humans or goats and it also affects trees. So scientists haven't done research on this matter.
So there several people through the extra information I have here, there must be people who were told they are positive, while they are not really corona patients. And some might even die from worry. The pawpaw, it's there it's not dead, it's there just getting ripe. And the goat is also just around, it's not even dead. The jackfruit (durian) it's there and maybe it will just rot after it has reached it's time. But all those are positive and more other things.
So I am giving advise to Tanzanians, don't worry, and for those who aren't tired and not injured in anyway, why should you worry? The flu has always been there, this is just more advanced, this shall also pass.
But the issue of finding out even a pawpaw has corona, it's inside the pawpaw not it's outer layer. They would have said it's someone who touched it has corona. But they took the samples with the right specifications, they inserted the swab inside the pawpaw. They might say someone went inside the goat and gave it corona. But to (have all these with) corona, there must be several questions to ask ourselves, we as Tanzanians, but also the whole world and Africa at large, we must ask ourselves about this whole issue of the virus. There must be something that isn't understood well by Tanzanians, and to the science community, and it might not be understood by the whole world.
But I am giving advise to the one who are using these equipments, especially in Africa, take samples from different animals, take samples of anything even a wall, even a lizard. Take a sample of anything, they are going to prove all that I am saying. I am a science expert I know what I am saying. And this work was done by people who are really qualified. I am urging Tanzanians, we are still in the elementary stage let's not panic. Let's continue to work hard, production should continue and in a huge scale. We should not put fear on each other, and politicians should stop using this as an agenda, it's not going to help them. But Tanzanians should not accept to be used, corona is not in Tanzania only, it's everywhere, it's in the United States of America, England, Holland, Sweden, everywhere, Japan, China...
Now they should not use this as a base, first of all this disease never started here, Tanzanians let's stand strong, let's unite, let's put god first, let's work hard. We should not be afraid of each other, we should help each other, so we can solve this problem together. And for those who are trying to do nonsense things, like the things I just said, that even a pawpaw has corona, Kware (type of bird) has corona, a goat has corona.
In the scientific approach people really have to work hard, I am asking our specialist, in universities, Sokoine (university), university of Dar es Salaam, all universities NEMRI and others, right time to work really hard, show your integrity in the research, during this period. I'm not really sure about the head of this laboratory, if he really knows, because even when we were taking the samples, we didn't tell him. He tested the samples thinking they are samples from humans. Why didn't he do trials? In the initial days? So he can justify the test kits he was using. So there are so many nonsense things in all this. (end video)
Now why in the hell don't we have a President like the President of Tanzania John Magufuli? This is what a real President that seriously cares about his own country would have done when presented with the “pandemic' storyline of something like 'covid-19'. Unfortunately though it's a damn shame that we have a POTUS that knows it's all a “LIVE EXERCISE” because his cabinet Secretary of State told him and all of us so; and likely that they (Team Trump) all have known this all along!! Fucking goddamn shameful and disgraceful!!! Disgusting beyond words.
I tell you, if this man John Magufuli were American and running for President in 2020, he sure as hell would be guaranteed my vote; I would actually bother voting for a candidate like him even though I have really given up on voting since like the 2008 election.
Here is fake liberal NPR using the words of a controlled puppet no doubt to say Magufuli is lying, and of course to promote balony coronie paradigm, and promote extreme detriment to Tanzania obviously (as well as all other countries in the "developing" world)
Tanzania's President Blames Fake Positive Tests In The Spike In Coronavirus Cases
Tanzania's president John Magufuli, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, is denying a spike in the country's coronavirus cases, claiming that positive COVID-19 tests are fake.www.npr.org
Quote:
PERALTA: He said he had samples taken from a goat and a sheep and a bird and a papaya and had them labeled with human names. They were sent to Tanzania's National Laboratory.
Quote:
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
MAGUFULI: (Speaking Swahili).
PERALTA: The papaya and others tested positive, he claimed - proof his labs were falsifying positive test results to sabotage Tanzania. He went on to say that he had ordered an herbal cure being pushed by the president of Madagascar.
ZITTO KABWE: I think the president is lying, and it is a very dangerous lie.
PERALTA: That is Zitto Kabwe, one of Tanzania's most prominent opposition figures. He says doctors and nurses unions are secretly keeping their own count of COVID-19 cases, and they have told him the cases are seven times more than what the government is reporting.
KABWE: What I can say is that the president is in a panic.
, so-called liberal non-racist piece of shit NPR, this shows how much they care about countries in Africa, or South America, Asia or anywhere else for that matter. NPR sucks as bad as the Heritage Foundation, or likely NPR is really in their back pocket anyway.
From the video description, translation from German,
Quote:
There are great doubts about the international approach and it is also criticized or assumed that the test sticks are already delivered contaminated in order to produce incorrect results.
Quote:
You will surely remember that test systems in which this RNA was already included were sent to the UK in March.
Some other articles of this incident said that the kits were imported from China. So far haven't seen what kits or company they are from, that would be helpful. But I am wondering that these kits might be for the PCR testing and not the antibody testing, but without further information we won't know.
But if we remember that in the PCR test protocol from the CDC, that a Human Specimen Control (HSC) needs to be ran,
from my post #5
Quote:
Quote:
Human Specimen Control (HSC)
Description
Manufactured by CDC. For use as an RNA extraction procedural control to demonstrate successful recovery of RNA as well as extraction reagent integrity. The HSC consists of noninfectious (beta-Propiolactone treated) cultured human cell material supplied as a liquid suspended in 0.01 M PBS at pH 7.2-7.4.
11- Possible bias,
On page 13 it says that the HSC (Human Specimen Control) is not provided, but that the HSC “must be extracted and processed with each specimen extraction run.”
HSC, this control is defined as- “For use as an RNA extraction procedural control to demonstrate successful recovery of RNA as well as extraction reagent integrity.”
I guess it can be obtained in other kits or use alternatives. Skipping a little ahead though, on page 18, in the protocol directions step 8 (and stated under the plate diagram {figure 2} for setup of samples), that the user can replace sample 10 (specimen sample, S10, in the row 11 wells) with HSC, “if necessary”. I would think that implies that you can exclude this control sample if deemed “unnecessary” by the testing lab?.
And so if the HSC can be excluded from the test (setup, not sure about that right now), than this would also be another bias, against checking the performance of the lysis buffer (RNA extraction from the samples/specimens), for the HSC should detect DNA (by the primer/probes for) from the human Rnase gene (RP) as well as the positive 2019-nCoV controls (has Rnase primers included with N1 & N2) should detect RP.
(bias) 14-
Quote:
I
Quote:
f the RP assay does not produce a positive result for human clinical specimens, interpret as follows: −If the 2019-nCoV N1 and N2are positive even in the absence of a positive RP, the result should be considered valid. It is possible, that some samples may fail to exhibit RNase P growth curves due to low cell numbers in the original clinical sample. Anegative RP signal does not preclude the presence of 2019-nCoV virus RNA in a clinical specimen.
This bias is carried even further as a bias against a “negative” result,
Quote:
−If all 2019-nCoV markers AND RNase P are negative for the specimen, the result should be considered invalid for the specimen.If residual specimen is available, repeat the extraction procedure and repeat the test. If all markers remain negative after re-test, report the results as invalid and a new specimen should be collected if possible.
This is basically a double whammy in these cases, if there is a problem with the RP detection. This is a control primer to insure that RNA has been successfully extracted and particularly from human cells. Extraction is necessary also to extract any viral RNA from the cells or at least separate it from cellular debris/material enough to allow amplification in the PCR thermal cycling reactions.
So, like I was saying, the HSC is a very important “control” in this test, for at the minimum it should tell us that the sample came from a human, and not a goat, sheep, pawpaw, jackfruit, or even car oil, but however it could not tell us what person it actually came from by detecting the human RP gene RNA in and of itself.
So now I have seen the change in the Cellex kit pdf document, 2 changes, and here is the first change,
Quote:
(first version, from post #19, posted April 29, 2020)
Quote:
TEST PRINCIPLE
The Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test is a lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay which can detect antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The test cassette consists of: 1) a burgundy colored conjugate pad containing SARS-CoV-2 recombinant antigens conjugated with colloidal gold (SARS-CoV-2 conjugates) and rabbit IgG-gold conjugates; 2) a nitrocellulose membrane strip containing an IgG line (G Line) coated with anti-human IgG, an IgM line (M Line) coated with anti-human IgM, and the control line (C Line) coated with goat anti-rabbit IgG.
(second version from clicking today)
TEST PRINCIPLE
The Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test is a lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay which can detect antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The test cassette consists of: 1) a burgundy colored conjugate pad containing SARS-CoV-2 recombinant antigens (S and N proteins) conjugated with colloidal gold (SARS-CoV-2 conjugates) and rabbit IgG-gold conjugates; 2) a nitrocellulose membrane strip containing an IgG line (G Line) coated with anti-human IgG, an IgM line (M Line) coated with anti-human IgM, and the control line (C Line) coated with goat anti-rabbit IgG.
So the first document does not state what the 'SARS-CoV-2' antigens in the kit are, while the second document does tell us the antigens (S and N proteins).
I actually had the previous document downloaded on my phone, cause I didn't have every part of it copy/pasted in post #18 or #19, and only had the one snippet from the previous Cellex pdf here of part of the Composition listing- “Monoclonal Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antigen conjugated on the membrane.”, so I am glad I still had the pdf. So I e-mailed it to myself from the phone (I have to do this with photos too cause I don't have a damn chord that will down load it directly to the PC) and from e-mail on the PC download it.
So here is the second change in the Cellex pdf from the previous version to the version now,
Quote:
(first version, post #19 {with posted snippet}, posted April 29, 2020)
Composition
Conjugate Pad Monoclonal Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antigen conjugated on the membrane.
G Line Anti-human IgG
M Line Anti-human IgM
C Line Goat anti-rabbit IgG
Sample Buffer 0.01M PBS; PH 7.4
Negative Control Negative human serum, chemically inactivated.
Positive Control Negative human serum spiked with positive serum, chemically inactivated. It may be reactive to the IgM line, IgG line or both.
(second version from clicking today)
Composition
Conjugate Pad SARS-CoV-2 antigen coated gold particles
G Line Anti-human IgG
M Line Anti-human IgM
C Line Goat anti-rabbit IgG
Sample Buffer0.01M PBS; PH 7.4
Negative Control Negative human serum, chemically inactivated.
Positive Control Negative human serum spiked with positive serum, chemically inactivated. It may be reactive to the IgM line, IgG line or both.
We can clearly see there is a difference in these two items from the previous document to the later version.
But wait, the second document has 5 pages while the first one has 4 pages, so there is a third change to it, let's see what that is,
Quote:
CONDITIONS OF AUTHORIZATION FOR LABORATORIES
The Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Letter of Authorization, along with the authorized Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers, the authorized Fact Sheet for Patients, and authorized labeling are available on the FDA website: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/...ons#covid19ivd.
However, to assist clinical laboratories using the (“your product” in the conditions below), the relevant Conditions of Authorization are listed below:
A. Authorized laboratories1 using your product will include with result reports of your product, all authorized Fact Sheets. Under exigent circumstances, other appropriate methods for disseminating these Fact Sheets may be used, which may include mass media.
B. Authorized laboratories using your product will use your product as outlined in the Instructions for Use. Deviations from the authorized procedures, including the authorized instruments, authorized clinical specimen types, authorized control materials, authorized other ancillary reagents and authorized materials required to use your product are not permitted.
C. Authorized laboratories that receive your product will notify the relevant public health authorities of their intent to run your product prior to initiating testing.
D. Authorized laboratories using your product will have a process in place for reporting test results to healthcare providers and relevant public health authorities, as appropriate.
E. Authorized laboratories will collect information on the performance of your product and report to DMD/OHT7-OIR/OPEQ/CDRH (via email: CDRH-EUA-Reporting@fda.hhs.gov) and You (tech@cellex.us) any suspected occurrence of false positive or false negative results and significant deviations from the established performance characteristics of your product of which they become aware.
F. All laboratory personnel using your product must be appropriately trained in immunochromatographic techniques and use appropriate laboratory and personal protective equipment when handling this kit, and use your product in accordance with the authorized labeling. All laboratory personnel using the assay must also be trained in and be familiar with the interpretation of results of the product.
G. Cellex Inc., authorized distributors, and authorized laboratories using your product will ensure that any records associated with this EUA are maintained until otherwise notified by FDA. Such records will be made available to FDA for inspection upon request.
1 The letter of authorization refers to, “Laboratories certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), 42 U.S.C. §263a, to perform moderate and high complexity tests” as “authorized laboratories.
”INQUIRIES AND GENERAL INFORMATION
Please visit website www.cellexcovid.com
I noticed that the pdf had changed on Monday (5/11/20), so in less than two weeks the document had been changed, I have to wonder if someone at Cellex had caught the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antigen on the Composition list, and obviously needed to change that before the kits start to become disseminated to the “point of care” (POC) users. Surly they will claim it to be a typo, oh those crazy conspiracy theorists, they never allow for legitimate unintentional human error of course.
Another interesting aspect of naming the antigens used that are named in the newer pdf version (the S {spike}and N {nucleocapsid I believe} proteins), is that I have seen it reported in recent articles (from March 2020) that there are at least two sub-units to the S protein, S1 and S2. It is now claimed that the ACE2 receptor binding properties of the RBD (receptor binding domain) for 'sars-cov-2' which the earlier paper I had looked at showed 5 out of 6 amino acid residues differed from the RBD of sars-cov: and that this RBD is significantly different from other coronaviruses (common cold ones).
And so that using the S1 sub-unit should yield higher specificity and lower cross reactivity than using the entire S protein, since the S2 sub-unit is thus much more highly conserved across the coronavirus panel (the different specie/strain used in testing for cross reactivity), and should at least nominally produce some cross reactivity although it will likely be claimed to be weak, but with these kits, there may be ways to make that non-specificity stronger, depending on how the components are bound to the membrane in the sample well or by spiking very small amounts of interfering substances to increase the cross-reaction etc.
The N protein is about 90% conserved between sars-cov and 'sars-cov-2' (genome/protein analysis), and so cross reactivity between these two is expected, but N protein is not as well conserved for other coronaviruses compares to 'sars-cov-2' so cross reaction may be weaker with the other coronaviruses of course. But it is also claimed that sars-cov no longer exists in any population today, but I have to wonder is that truthful or not, I suspect definitely not, but never mind proving that right now:
but here is one source that claims to be developing a 'sars-cov-2' treatment (and vaccine possibly I think) from antibodies produced from the sars-cov virus:
Quote:
This company working on a Covid-19 treatment involving SARS antibodies
Quote:
This company working on a Covid-19 treatment involving SARS antibodies
Distributed Bio is creating a treatment for Covid-19 patients using antibodies from SARS patients. Jake Glanville, Distributed Bio CEO and founder, joins 'Closing Bell' to discuss the antibody treatment.www.cnbc.com
Distributed Bio is creating a treatment for Covid-19 patients using antibodies from SARS patients. Jake Glanville, Distributed Bio CEO and founder, joins ‘Closing Bell’ to discuss the antibody treatment.
Tue, Apr 21 20203:51 PM EST
(from my Facebook post, April 24, 2020, describing what Jake Glanville was saying in the video)
SARS antibodies (from original SARS outbreak virus 2002-2004) being manufactured in biotech (probably 600 gallon vats) companies, to 'treat' 'covid-19', supposedly from 'covid-19' recovered patients. If these antibodies can "treat' 'covid-19', is "covid-19" really just another actual SARS outbreak? It should be questioned whether or not exposure to SARS virus (SARS-CoV-1) or other known strains of previously known coronaviruses (like strains 229E, OC43, HKU1, NL63 that cause "common colds") cam cause false positives on the new 'covid-19' antibody serum tests, I would likely believe that they do absolutely, but will be claimed to be much more specific (higher %) than they really are.
(corrected comment on the post, posted later)
I need to correct my original comment on this story/video, they are using direct antibodies produced against the original SARS virus (that part is probably true) and not using antibodies from 'covid-19' "recovered' patients, and they claim to have mutated the SARS antibodies hundreds of millions of times (this is most likely a total lie) and are beginning to produce trial batches of said antibody protiens now.
So if some companies are allegedly trying to use so-called “convalescent” plasma from recovered 'covid-19' patients to attempt treatments (primarily from any virus “neutralizing” antibodies these people have supposedly produced), why would anyone really need to use anti-sars-cov antibodies for that? I have seen studies suggesting that antibodies to sars-cov can be used for serology testing of 'sars-cov-2' and possibly for “viral neutralization” as well, not bothering to post those sources at the moment:
but we could also ask why if that is true- than why bother having to mutate the sars-cov antibodies hundreds of millions of times in order for them to then be able to recognize-bind to 'sars-cov-2' for treatment (or perhaps serology as well?)??? I believe I smell total bullshit there on the part of Jake Glanville and Distributed Bio.
So one last thing I wanted to add to this massive post, is a diagram I drew to represent possible hypothetical results on the Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test kit, first result would be considered a "true positive" if we assume a sample (blood say) actually has an antibody that can bind to the 'sars-cov-2' antigen in the test kit (the two antibodies depicted with blue color, IgG and the larger 5 prong IgM):
and the second result would be a "false positive" if an antibody in the blood sample is one produced from say the NL-63 coronavirus strain- a current or previous exposure/infection (the two antibodies depicted in green color, and the IgM one I labeled wrong in my drawing {of course I would, not fixing the image now}, it should read (H anti-NL-63 IgM) and not (H anti-SARS IgM));
That's it for now, hope those that enjoy long posts really like this onemore than I enjoyed typing it, didn't think I was ever going to finish this one, sheesh!
Was very surprised to find at German WIKI a critical review for PCR:
"Positive PCR-Testergebnisse wurden von 2020 bis 2021 in der Regel als Indikator für eine Infektion betrachtet, die auch symptomlos, asymptomatisch oder präsymptomatisch verlaufen, dabei aber infektös sein konnte. Bei den PCR-Tests war der Ct-Wert ein Richtwert für die Ansteckungsgefahr. PCR-Tests waren jedoch nicht normiert und standardisiert. Die Ct-Werte wurden nicht immer weitergemeldet (anderslautende Angaben von Karl Lauterbach). Die Ergebnisse sind zudem abhängig von der Methodik der Entnahme, der Menge der Probenentnahme, dem Zeitpunkt der Entnahme im möglichen Infektionsverlauf, von der Patientengeschichte und von der Person, die die Probe entnimmt, außerdem werden strenge Laboratoriumsbedingungen vorausgesetzt.
Aus den positiven Testergebnissen wurde die Inzidenz errechnet, die zur Begründung von Lockdown-Maßnahmen diente. Eine Untersuchung vom 31. Mai 2021 soll ergeben haben, dass 78 Prozent der zwischen dem 8. März und dem 10. Mai 2021 positiv Getesteten sehr wahrscheinlich nicht ansteckend gewesen seien, da die Tests in der Stichprobe Ct-Werte über 25 und damit eine niedrige Viruslast anzeigten.[1] Für das RKI gilt ein Ct-Wert größer 30 als Indiz für fehlende Infektiosität.[2]" (WIKI)
Here also a comment found at YT which seems an acurate short summary:
"Alle bisher veröffentlichten Studien (zu SARS-CoV-2) basieren auf der Annahme von Sequenzvorschlägen ( ! ) , welche von chin. Wissenschaftlern ( Zhang et al.) am 03.02.2020 vorgestellt wurden ( von der CD am 04.02.2020 veröffentlicht). Man hatte den kompletten Bronchialauswurf eines Patienten genutzt, OHNE das vorab eine Isolation stattgefunden hatte. Prof. Zhang schreibt selbst, dass er von kurzen Genabschnitten ( von etwa 25-30 Nukleotiden) mit – Zitat „sehr aufwendigen Methoden“ ein Genom von 29803 Nukleotiden ERRECHNET hatte. Einfach ausgedrückt – aus 0,1% mach 100%."
"Positive PCR-Testergebnisse wurden von 2020 bis 2021 in der Regel als Indikator für eine Infektion betrachtet, die auch symptomlos, asymptomatisch oder präsymptomatisch verlaufen, dabei aber infektös sein konnte. Bei den PCR-Tests war der Ct-Wert ein Richtwert für die Ansteckungsgefahr. PCR-Tests waren jedoch nicht normiert und standardisiert. Die Ct-Werte wurden nicht immer weitergemeldet (anderslautende Angaben von Karl Lauterbach). Die Ergebnisse sind zudem abhängig von der Methodik der Entnahme, der Menge der Probenentnahme, dem Zeitpunkt der Entnahme im möglichen Infektionsverlauf, von der Patientengeschichte und von der Person, die die Probe entnimmt, außerdem werden strenge Laboratoriumsbedingungen vorausgesetzt.
Aus den positiven Testergebnissen wurde die Inzidenz errechnet, die zur Begründung von Lockdown-Maßnahmen diente. Eine Untersuchung vom 31. Mai 2021 soll ergeben haben, dass 78 Prozent der zwischen dem 8. März und dem 10. Mai 2021 positiv Getesteten sehr wahrscheinlich nicht ansteckend gewesen seien, da die Tests in der Stichprobe Ct-Werte über 25 und damit eine niedrige Viruslast anzeigten.[1] Für das RKI gilt ein Ct-Wert größer 30 als Indiz für fehlende Infektiosität.[2]" (WIKI)
Here also a comment found at YT which seems an acurate short summary:
"Alle bisher veröffentlichten Studien (zu SARS-CoV-2) basieren auf der Annahme von Sequenzvorschlägen ( ! ) , welche von chin. Wissenschaftlern ( Zhang et al.) am 03.02.2020 vorgestellt wurden ( von der CD am 04.02.2020 veröffentlicht). Man hatte den kompletten Bronchialauswurf eines Patienten genutzt, OHNE das vorab eine Isolation stattgefunden hatte. Prof. Zhang schreibt selbst, dass er von kurzen Genabschnitten ( von etwa 25-30 Nukleotiden) mit – Zitat „sehr aufwendigen Methoden“ ein Genom von 29803 Nukleotiden ERRECHNET hatte. Einfach ausgedrückt – aus 0,1% mach 100%."
gl69m
Member
@alpha77 (post #13)
Thanks for that, most interesting part for me was this (english translation via google translator),
Thanks for that, most interesting part for me was this (english translation via google translator),
I believe Ct means cycle threshold, the number of cycles ran at which the fluorescent detector picks up signal from the reporter dyes in the pcr reaction wells, meaning that enough DNA has been amplified to detect a minimum signal. I assume they mean that at Ct (amplification cycle) 25 and above means very few copies of original DNA in the sample was initially present, therefore taking that many cycles before the machine sensor could detect a fluorescent light signal back from the sample above the background noise signal level. Anything above 30 cycles, I think they are saying that there was way too few to start with (less than 10 original copies perhaps? not sure) to be of any concern in infectivity aka so-called viral load. The higher the number of cycles the more likely a non-specific binding can occur with one of the primers and can trigger DNA amplification and thus potentially that can begin at any cycle and eventually produce a signal, which would be a false positive since it would be amplifying a gene that wasn't the intended gene target. The Ct cycles ran back in 2020 were at least 35 cycles and often at 40 and above if I recall correctly. There are other ways the primers can generate enough signal on their own to create false positives too.
Plandemic/C19 is a fucking lame hoax, only cause 90%+ people still comply and believe the crap gives it a life, technicaly it is long dead and burried.. I mean believe the "experts" media and "politicians" it is beyond me, when these people lied so much in the past and most of the public still buys it...
These people are to blame who get the vx, make tests (without tests no pandemic) and even blame people that are awaken to the BS - 9/11was Kindergarten compared to this and still you cannot escape the propaganda everywhere in the nets and newspapersit is still everyday even if one does not watch TV or read MSM. I am pissed and wish was in the US where you can buy weapons to have at least a last line of defense, but seems the resistance in the US is also not much bigger than in Europe ???? I thought the partiots say do not tread on me etc....
These people are to blame who get the vx, make tests (without tests no pandemic) and even blame people that are awaken to the BS - 9/11was Kindergarten compared to this and still you cannot escape the propaganda everywhere in the nets and newspapersit is still everyday even if one does not watch TV or read MSM. I am pissed and wish was in the US where you can buy weapons to have at least a last line of defense, but seems the resistance in the US is also not much bigger than in Europe ???? I thought the partiots say do not tread on me etc....
TheTruthIsSweet
Well-known member
From Alpha77:
Very very true
Very very true
gl69m
Member
@alpha77 (post #15)
Yeah I find that odd that I haven't seen any preppers or conservative militia types really come out and say that 'covid' is a complete hoax, they seemed to still buy into it as real and downplay it of course, but they all claim that they know treatments and cures the medical industry suppresses etc. The whole thing boggled my mind last year (but shouldn't have been surprising I guess) that all the protesting going on was almost all centered around the political shoving match of right vs left, for the last several decades, and very very little about protesting 'covid' restrictions et al; which there is plenty to protest from both sides against 'covid', but I would have expected a lot more of that from the conservative side especially from the self proclaimed patriots... disappointing really. This year there is now considerably more protest against restrictions and vaxxine passports and requirements/mandates, worldwide, and that is encouraging, Australia needs that up the wazoo, very little such protesting in the U.S. unfortunately but has picked up a little bit of steam as 2021 has rolled along.
Yeah I find that odd that I haven't seen any preppers or conservative militia types really come out and say that 'covid' is a complete hoax, they seemed to still buy into it as real and downplay it of course, but they all claim that they know treatments and cures the medical industry suppresses etc. The whole thing boggled my mind last year (but shouldn't have been surprising I guess) that all the protesting going on was almost all centered around the political shoving match of right vs left, for the last several decades, and very very little about protesting 'covid' restrictions et al; which there is plenty to protest from both sides against 'covid', but I would have expected a lot more of that from the conservative side especially from the self proclaimed patriots... disappointing really. This year there is now considerably more protest against restrictions and vaxxine passports and requirements/mandates, worldwide, and that is encouraging, Australia needs that up the wazoo, very little such protesting in the U.S. unfortunately but has picked up a little bit of steam as 2021 has rolled along.
gl69m
Member
Post #25 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Post #25
Saw this site on my Facebook feed for 'covid-19' testing,
ION Drug and Alcohol Testing
https://iondat.com/covid19
Quote:
Covid 19 IgG Testing
Who is this test for?
This test is for anyone who has NO current symptoms and has had NO symptoms for 10 days.
What does this test do?
This test determines if you have IgG antibodies to COVID-19. The human body produces IgG antibodies as part of the immune response to the virus. It usually takes 10 to 18 days to produce enough antibodies to be detected in the blood.
Antibodies typically suggest protective immunity after recovering from or being exposed to COVID-19. Evidence is still being collected to determine if the IgG antibodies provide protective immunity against SARS COV 2, the virus that causes COVID 19.
Does taking this test help others?
Allowing us to share your results will help our health officials better understand the virus.
The IgG Serology Test
The IgG serology test has not been reviewed or approved by the FDA. The test is authorized to be performed and marketed by the FDA.
Results from the antibody test should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or rule out SARS-COV-2 infection or to inform infection status. Only an RT-PCR molecular diagnostic test which tests for the actual virus can diagnose the disease.
Negative results do not rule out SARS-COV-2 infection, particularly in those that have been in contact with the virus. Follow up testing with a molecular diagnostic should be considered to rule out infection in these individuals.
Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-COV-2 corona virus strains, such as corona virus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E.
Is it safe to come to a ION Testing Location?
ION Testing Services takes your safety and health seriously and has procedures in place to protect both our clients and our employees.
We require all clients and employees to wear masks.
When you enter our facility you will be asked to cleanse your hands with hand sanitizer. Then we will take your temperature with a non-contact thermometer, We clean and sanitize our facility to the highest standards. We can get you in and out within 10-15 minutes.
If you prefer staying in your car until your appointment, just call us when you arrive and we will text you when it is time to come in. We are located at 220 West Brandon Blvd. Suite 209 Brandon, FL 33511. 813-448-2870
Talk about a disclaimer!! One leading to a very high number of false positives, depending on whatever "antigen' the test kit they are using, how "specific" for the alleged 'sars-cov-2' "antigens' used as opposed to what someones current blood antibodies were really produced from that might bind the 'antigen" in the test kit. Unfortunately few will probably even read the whole page or comprehend that line even if they do read it, as illustrated by the FB post I saw, a woman asked about where to go for testing, and another woman commented and pointed out that line about false positives from other coronaviruses and told that woman not to waste her money, no response from her (woman asking where to go for testing) though as per usual.
Notice too the image of the punctured finger, with a lance pen tool like used for blood glucose testing in diabetics, we saw in the Cellex kit that this type of blood is not recommended ("Use with fingerstick blood is not recommended.") for use in their kit. I don't know about the other kits though, not sure how many recommend fingerstick blood or not right now.
gl69m
Member
Post #26 (from original thread, from Truthissweet)
Post #27 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Post #27 (from original thread, from gl69m)
from Truthissweet (post #26),
Quote:
From gl69m:
Quote:
This test is for anyone who has NO current symptoms and has had NO symptoms for 10 days.
What does this test do?
This test determines if you have IgG antibodies to COVID-19. The human body produces IgG antibodies as part of the immune response to the virus. It usually takes 10 to 18 days to produce enough antibodies to be detected in the blood.]
Let's say I have really good antibodies. Top of the line type stuff. Can I sell the antibodies to use in a vaccine? Can govt force me to "donate" antibodies for the good of mankind?
Great question Rob, I wouldn't doubt at all that eventually we will hear stories like this as the psyop progresses, I'll have to look into it. I found one paper from China where they purportedly used donated plasma (from donated blood, termed "convalescent plasma treatment") of 'covid' "recovered' patients to treat other 'covid' patients, and claimed good success rate, I will have to catch up on that later; I know I say that a lot and many times I never come back to something, my fault, but I try to look into too many things, and I'm not good at finishing or following up on multi-tasking like that, too much work.
Hopefully I am contributing useful information and worthwhile breakdown of so that what I add can add to the collective understanding of what's going on that all of us as a whole have contributed.
gl69m
Member
Post #28 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Post #28
Dr. Pam Popper (she may be an alternative health doctor not really sure) explains 'covid-19' testing innacuracies, and that Dr. Joseph Fair claimed he must have had 'covid' but he tested "negative" for it (PCR test I believe) 4 times.
Misinformation, Inaccurate Tests and What’s Next
Jun 4, 2020
She explains very well the extreme bias in 'diagnosing' a "presumptive positive" 'covid' case clinically when the "diagnostic' test actually comes back negative.
NBC News contributor with ties to New Orleans is fighting coronavirus, report says
May 14, 2020
https://www.nola.com/news/coronaviru...08fe98bb3.html
Quote:
A doctor who has contributed to NBC News' coronavirus coverage and has ties to New Orleans is recovering from the infectious disease himself, according to a report from the news organization.
Dr. Joseph Fair, a 42-year-old virologist and epidemiologist, popped into Thursday's third hour of the 'Today Show' to detail his COVID-19 battle, which he said he believes he contracted about three days after a crowded flight to his home in New Orleans.
Fair told show host Al Roker he believes he contracted the disease through his eyes.
"I had a mask on, I had gloves on, I did my normal wipes routine ... but obviously, you can still get it through your eyes," Fair said during a video call from his hospital bed. "... we tend to pay attention to the nose and mouth because that is the most common route, but you know, droplets landing on your eyes are just as infectious."
After several days of fighting off the disease, Fair was downgraded from critical condition on Wednesday. He said he initially didn't go to the hospital in an effort to not overwhelm the system as he only had flu-like symptoms that started with a loss of appetite. Eventually, he called an ambulance once he said he could only take in 25 percent of the oxygen he was trying to breathe.
Fair told NBC News that he tested negative for COVID-19 four times, but said that's not surprising since he waited a while to go to the hospital.
He also left a message for others like him, considered young and at "the peak of health" in their lives: "If it can take me down it can take anybody down."
You can read more about Fair's diagnosis and recovery here.
There is video of Dr. Fair describing his bout with 'coronavirus', I only watched about 20 seconds of it, IMSO complete crisis acting by Dr. Fair, he might have had a sore throat. If more people don't start see this murderous hoax for what it is and stay far away from this bullshit testing (of all kinds), we are in for a world of hurt coming in this society.