Saturday, October 3, 2020

Useless FDA and CDC admit Covid antibody tests are worthless. Why have they approved them? Why are we paying for them?

I have been meaning to update the information on Covid-19 testing, since it has been such a confusing subject. This post will only cover antibody (aka serology) tests.  And most of the post will be direct quotes from the FDA and CDC websites, because you would probably not believe me if I simply paraphrased the information.  So here is my synthesis, followed by direct quotes from the agencies.

Boiled down, what FDA and CDC say is: 
1.   The presence of antibodies does not mean you have had Covid.  
2.   The test might be positive due to a cross reaction with antibodies from a cold you had.  
3.   Even if you have antibodies and did have Covid, they don't tell us whether or not you are immune.
4.   Even if you are immune today, you may not be immune tomorrow--who knows?
5.   You may have had Covid and have no antibodies
6.   Antibody tests are meaningless for individuals, but might give us useful information at the population level.
7.   Regardless of the result, you still need to wear masks and socially distance.
8.   In a population where less than 5% have had Covid, over 50% of positive results will be false positives.

Yet CDC admits that reinfection is rare.  There are only 3 documented cases of reinfection in the US, so there must be good immunity after infection for most people.  

Bottom line:  why are we doing these tests?  Why hasn't FDA rescinded its emergency approval, since in the majority of the US, most positive results are false positives? And why don't we have better tests? T-cell immunity is probably more accurate, but there are no commercially available T-cell tests for the public. Why are we still measuring antibodies that cross-react with those for the common cold?  Is this another way the federal government is keeping us confused and locked down?

Here are the direct quotes:

"...COVID-19 antibody tests can help identify people who may have been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or have recovered from the COVID-19 infection." 

At this time, researchers do not know whether the presence of antibodies means that you are immune to the coronavirus in the future; or if you are immune, how long it will last."

"...additional data are needed before modifying public health recommendations based on serologic [antibody] test results, including decisions on discontinuing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment. 

...Although serologic tests should not be used at this time to determine if an individual is immune, these tests can help determine the proportion of a population previously infected with SARS-CoV-2

...Recurrence of COVID-19 illness appears to be very uncommon

...However, it remains uncertain to what degree and for how long individuals with antibodies (neutralizing or total) are protected against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 a population where the prevalence is 5%, a test with 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity will yield a positive predictive value of 49%. In other words, less than half of those testing positive will truly have antibodies. 

...pending additional data, the presence of antibodies cannot be equated with an individual’s immunity from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

...Some tests may exhibit cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses, such as those that cause the common cold. This could result in false-positive test results. Some persons may not develop detectable antibodies after coronavirus infection.

...Serologic testing by itself should not be used to establish the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or reinfection."


John F. McGowan, Ph.D. said...

There have been a number of detailed critiques of the antibody and RT-PCR tests for Sars-Cov-2 from the start. See these from David Crowe, a long time critic of mainstream HIV/AIDS theory who passed away from cancer in July:

This is his critique of the antibody tests from May 13:

Andrew Kaufman has made similar critiques in various videos including some interviews by the super-controversial David Icke:

A more mainstream source Michael Yeadon, formerly with Pfizer, has raised similar issues regarding the RT-PCR tests in the UK:

The most generous interpretation of the astonishing contradictory claims and numbers put out by the CDC and its sister agencies, which have been obvious on their pneumonia and influenza web site for years, is that they don't know what they are doing and, for some reason, perhaps vanity and foolish pride, don't realize it. I fear something more sinister is involved at least at the top level.

It is critical to somehow communicate this to the general public, to highly educated people who simply can't believe the CDC and other sister agencies are so incompetent or corrupt, that they would put out obviously contradictory claims and numbers, perform such obviously poor work. The world view that these are the experts and they know what they are doing, backed up by the mass media, is protecting them. In some respects, it resembles the Emperor's New Clothes folktale.

BrearleyB said...

Here is one more reason hydroxychloroquine cannot be allowed:

these people are really bastards.