Coronavirus tests are a LIE… false positives vastly outnumber real positives … official infection counts wildly overstated
The African nation of Tanzania recently sent samples to the WHO for coronavirus testing. Among those items that tested positive for the coronavirus were samples from a goat, a papaya and a pheasant, all at once exposing the total science fraud behind coronavirus testing.
As we’ve warned for over a month, most coronavirus tests produce huge numbers of false positives. The testing kits are largely made in China, and either through gross incompetence or malicious intent, China-made lab tests are notorious for being so inaccurate that they’re practically useless.
Notably, the infamous “Stanford Study” which was seized upon by the conservative media to claim that the coronavirus had already infected a large percentage of the population and therefore wasn’t very deadly also relied in China-made antibody tests that produced huge numbers of false positives. Those who touted the findings of the Stanford Study were actually getting hoodwinked by China, it turns out.
Similar antibody tests have been run in New York, allowing Cuomo to spread total disinformation to the public, claiming somewhere around 14% of all New Yorkers have already been infected with the virus.
We now have enough knowledge of the “false positives” testing fiasco to be able to say, with confidence, that the official coronavirus infection numbers are wildly over-stated. Nowhere near that number of people have actually been infected.
Does that means the coronavirus is far more deadly than what people are being led to believe?
Why the coronavirus actually kills about 10% of those who become symptomatic
In the United States, the official numbers currently show that 1.35 million people are confirmed as infected, while 80,351 people have so far died from the virus. If you take these numbers at face value, that would put the current Case Fatality Rate (CFR) for the coronavirus at 5.9%.
The infection numbers, though, are wildly over-inflated due to faulty testing kits that produce false positives. If we adjust the infection numbers down to a more realistic level, the CFR jumps significantly higher. And yes, there are likely some people dying from other things who have been incorrectly counted as COVID-19 deaths, but the Financial Times analysis of excess mortalities from all causes ends that argument by documenting a huge surge in recent deaths from any cause, regardless of what’s stated on death certificates.
And we actually have a way to take a good guess at the degree by which those infection numbers are over-inflated.
We already know that many of these kits produce somewhere around 10 false positives per 100 people tested, or a 10% false positive rate (many kits are far worse). We can also intelligently estimate that right now somewhere around 2% of the US population has actually been infected. This is a rough estimate, but as you’ll see below, whether this is 1% or 4% doesn’t change the conclusions by much.
Now, if you test 100 people for the coronavirus, and 2 out of those 100 actually have the coronavirus, but the test kits you’re using have a false positive rate of 10 out of 100, then you will get, essentially 12 positives out of 100.
Notably, 10 of those positives are false, and 2 are real. This means the false positives are 500% higher than the real positives. And if you rely on those findings, you would incorrectly think that 500% more people have been infected than actually have.
This is precisely what the Stanford Study did. They ran tests that produced false positives, then they extrapolated that false finding to the entire population of California. From that, they incorrectly concluded that a huge percentage of California had already been infected, and therefore the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of the coronavirus was very, very small. As we show in this Natural News article, Stanford researchers likely produced 13 false positives for every 1 real positive.
That entire conclusion falls apart when you realize the testing kits they used were made in China. In fact, those particular kits were so unreliable that Stanford researchers tried to hide the origins of the kits in their paper, but internet sleuths found out the kits were actually made by Hangzhou Biotest Biotech, a company that ranked last place in testing kit accuracy. As ExtremeTech.com explained:
At the time Stanford did the study, there weren’t any FDA-approved COVID-19 antibody tests for clinical use. But for research purposes, the team purchased tests from Premier Biotech in Minnesota. Premier has started marketing a COVID-19 antibody test, but it doesn’t create it. The test listed on the company’s website, and that it appears Stanford used, is from Hangzhou Biotest Biotech, an established Chinese lab test vendor.
It also turned out that the Wall Street Journal writer who touted the stunning findings of the paper was one of the paper co-authors who failed to identify his obvious conflict of interest. So the entire study — and the subsequent WSJ editorial coverage of it — was a rigged scam, 100% science fraud parading around as breaking news to try to deceive America.