The PCR test, also known as “molecular testing,” was chosen as the “gold standard” by the CDC despite it being proven completely unreliable when used before the coronavirus ever showed up.
This fact was brought to bear in an article by George Michael, a London-based medical researcher, and data analyst, who referenced a New York Times article dated 22 January 2007.
The Times article, titled, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic that Wasn’t,” exposes how a New Hampshire community was freaked out back in 2007 by fears of a serious infectious disease epidemic that turned out to be unfounded. As the article states, “Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.”
The test that led them astray was the same PCR test that has shown to be highly flawed in accurately determining whether someone with COVID-19 is actually infectious.
Here’s what happened according to The New York Times article:
In January 2007, Dr. Kathryn Kirkland, infectious disease expert at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire, was concerned about several workers in her hospital coming down with coughs that couldn’t be controlled. Her fear was this could be the re-appearance of whooping cough, a disease that could be fatal to children and older adults with frail immune systems.
To determine the potential of an epidemic, a molecular test that gave quick results was administered to some 1,000 hospital workers. Based on that test, 142 workers were told they appeared to be infectious with the disease and were ordered to stay home as a caution.
The New York Times wrote,
“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”
The article continued, noting,
“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.”
That molecular test was at the center of the false alarm?
The article confirms, “At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, PCR (polymerase chain reaction). It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.”
Reacting to the false alarm created by the PCR test, Dr. Trish M. Perl, epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America, stated this back then about the PCR test: “It’s a problem; we know it’s a problem. My guess is that what happened at Dartmouth is going to become more common.”
TRENDPOST: As we have reported, the media continues to promote the spiking “cases” while not only failing to mention the inaccuracy of the tests but never a peep about the 99.8 percent recovery rate for those who get the virus.
