Yikes: New York Times Estimates 90% of ‘Positive’ COVID Test Results Really Are Negative!

Pixabay
image_pdfimage_print
The New York Times reviewed PCR test data compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York, and Nevada and determined that up to 90% of those testing positive carried either no virus or such a small amount as to be of no danger whatsoever. Furthermore: “Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…” Journalist Jon Rappoport says the PCR test is so sensitive it picks up inconsequential tiny amounts of virus that couldn’t harm a flea—and calls this a “positive” test. Millions of people are labeled “positive/infected” who carry so little virus that no harm would come to them or anyone they contact. Ironically, the New York Times, after showing that the tests are at least a 90% failure, then recommended testing those without symptoms. [It seems that everyone is gaming the system.] -GEG

Townhall.com, August 29: “According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing. Leading public health experts are now concerned that overtesting is responsible for misdiagnosing a huge number of people with harmless amounts of the virus in their systems.”

“’Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…’ warns The Times.”

Yes, that’s what the NY Times is confessing (8/29): “Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”

“In three sets of testing data…compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

Let me break this down for you, because it’s a lot worse than the Times admits. The rabbit hole goes much deeper—and I’ve been reporting on the deeper facts for months.

The issue appears to be the ballooning sensitivity of the PCR test. It’s so sensitive that it picks up inconsequential tiny, tiny amounts of virus that couldn’t harm a flea—and it calls these amounts “positive.”

Therefore, millions of people are labeled “positive/infected” who carry so little virus that no harm would come to them or anyone they come in contact with.

That would be bad enough. But the truth is, the PCR test is not able to produce ANY reliable number that reflects how much virus a person is carrying. A lot, a little, it doesn’t matter.

The test has never been validated, in a large-scale study, for the ability to quantify the amount of virus a person is carrying. I’ve proposed how that study should be done IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT IN THE LAB.

You take 1000 people and remove tissue samples from them. A lab puts these samples through its PCR and announces which virus it found in each case and how much virus it found in each case.

It says: “All right, in patients 23, 46, 76, 89, 265 we found a high amount of virus.”

That should mean these particular patients are visibly sick. They will have obvious clinical symptoms. Why? Because actual illness requires millions of millions of a virus replicating in the body.

So now we unblind these particular patients with high amounts of virus, according to the PCR. Are they, in fact, sick? Or are they running marathons and swimming five miles a day? Let’s see. For real.

THIS VALIDATION OF THE PCR HAS NEVER BEEN DONE.

Therefore, the claim that the PCR can determine how much virus is in a human is completely and utterly unproven. Period.

Therefore, ALL the PCR tests being done on people all over the world reflect NOTHING about illness, infection, contagion, or transmission.

The scam is wall to wall.

But there’s more.

The PCR isn’t even testing for a particular virus in the first place. It’s using a piece of RNA assumed to be part of a virus. The assumption is unproven.

And finally, as I’ve been writing and demonstrating for months, there is no evidence that researchers used proper procedure to discover “a new coronavirus that is causing a pandemic.”

Therefore, the PCR test, as worthless as it already is, aims to show the presence of a germ that has never been shown to exist.

But let’s lock down the planet, destroy economies and untold numbers of lives in the process.

Read full article here…

Additional source:

nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary

Freedom

Italy Opens Thousands of Restaurants in Protest Against Tighter Lockdowns

January 22, 2021 RT 0

Italy: 50,000 restaurants and bars joined a campaign to open their doors in protest of government lockdown of their businesses. It is unknown how many did open, but videos show customers drinking, eating and singing. In one viral video customers apparently booted the police back out the door.

Health

RNA ‘Vaccines’ Are GMO Implants, Not Vaccines

January 19, 2021 David Martin 4

Martin says Moderna describes its product not as a vaccine, but as “gene-therapy technology” in SEC filings. Neither Moderna or Pfizer make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission. Moderna’s own clinical study says it is “impractical to measure infection.”

Freedom

Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman Says Freedom of Speech Does not Include the Right to Say the Election was Rigged

Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman said that “lies” about the legitimacy of the election were not protected under the Constitution. He said, “This idea that saying that Pennsylvania was rigged, or that we were trying to ‘steal the election, that’s a lie.” He said: “That is not protected speech.”

Classifieds

For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BDBinc
BDBinc
4 months ago

Yes and thats the conservative figure, its accurately 100% wrong as the RT PCR test cannot diagnose disease/infection of an RNA” virus’ contaminated with dna and the virome.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y1KzCKrZ3A&feature=youtu.be
They did not isolate a infectious ” virus’ they just computer generated the genome of a CG one.
https://notpublicaddress.wordpress.com/2020/08/08/how-to-create-your-own-novel-virususing-computer-software/

irish
irish
4 months ago

the jig is up! its being exposed for the die hard face diapered,yet governor in those states with mandates ,are not removing the mandates.

trackback
FFWN: What If We Told You the “News” Is Just a Distraction? – Kevin Barrett
4 months ago

[…] 10) New York Times Estimates 90% of ‘Positive’ COVID Test Results Really Are Negative https://needtoknow.news/2020/09/yikes-new-york-times-estimates-90-of-positive-covid-test-results-rea… […]

Ben Dover
Ben Dover
4 months ago

This entire scam-demic / plan-demic is ‘compliance conditioning’ so to compel most to get the ‘vaccine’… to trust the gov. to protect you….