Bad News Thread

And so of those, we had 9,000 or so very well-documented cases of those blue patients who went hypoxic, had that whole series of events happened and they scattered across the world. What we weren't tracking at the time was all of the people that interacted with that virus and didn't present that way. And so people that presented more like the common cold or the flu didn't get counted in the SARS event, only those that really presented with life-threatening and high mortality events were tracked.
 
Interestingly, as we fast forward then to, nine, 10 years to 2011, 2012, we find the emergence of another Corona virus that was termed MERS, a Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome. And it's important that the SARS, which was a severe acute respiratory syndrome or MERS, Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome, or now SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19 as it is now, are descriptions of syndromes, not the actual virus. So SARS-CoV-2 is now our description of the virus and COVID-19 is the description of the syndrome, the clinical syndrome.
 
And so when we say there's, some number of COVID-19 cases, that doesn't mean that we even know that the virus is present in that person's bloodstream at that moment, or is having any contribution to that person's syndrome. What we're saying is there's, cases showing up that have syndromes of, loss of smell, loss of taste, some headache, low intermittent fevers that can course through for a week or two. Those are the mild syndromes that would not have been counted in the SARS outbreak and are being counted now because we're using a laboratory science tool called PCR, which has never been designed or implemented as a diagnostic tool because it's terrible as a diagnostic tool because it picks up so much noise within the virome.
 
And so anybody with Corona virus fragments or protein production in their bloodstream from something like the common cold or other viruses that makes them more proteins can have false positives. So we've seen false positive rates with PCR for COVID-19 syndrome, as far as being specific to an actual SARS-CoV- 2 protein, the false positives are anywhere between 30 and 80%. And so we've seen true positives being as low as 19% and as high as maybe 70%. And so, in other words, when a test comes back positive, it's almost a flip of the coin really as to whether or not the virus is even present in enough concentrations to be even involved in the syndrome that we're looking at.
 
And so interestingly with SARS, as mentioned in 2002, it burned out in two years, and MERS, same thing, it was gone within the human experience within two years. And so we can predict very well that this is going to also be gone in two years. And so, as I've been talking about since February with the Chinese cases is, we don't need to clamor for a vaccine because by the time we even find an effective vaccine, we will have come into balance with this virus and the next one's not going to look just like this and whatever vaccine we develop this, isn't going to work this year.
 
We know this for flu vaccine, right? Every single year, we have to create a new flu vaccine. And every single year, it never stops flu from occurring. We have never changed the penetration of flu for the vaccines that we put out. The only thing that we've shown that we hope to hang our hat on when we go out and do a universal campaign to do flu vaccines is to decrease the amount of time people are symptomatic with the condition, but we know very well with decades of experience with flu vaccine and innumerable other vaccines for viruses, we don't change the rate of infection. We hope to modify in at least a small portion of the people the duration of symptoms.
 
............just abject invalidity of the testing. Which we're using, we're screaming about tests, we're using testing as criteria to make very critical decisions. And the testing is completely unreliable. And as you said, even the creator of the test felt that, said that this test was never supposed to be used in such a way yet we're doing that. So just on that one point, why do you think, I mean, there's enough smart scientists out there who are embracing that. Why do you think they're embracing the current testing methodology?
 
Bruddah IZ said:
We know this for flu vaccine, right? Every single year, we have to create a new flu vaccine. And every single year, it never stops flu from occurring. We have never changed the penetration of flu for the vaccines that we put out. The only thing that we've shown that we hope to hang our hat on when we go out and do a universal campaign to do flu vaccines is to decrease the amount of time people are symptomatic with the condition, but we know very well with decades of experience with flu vaccine and innumerable other vaccines for viruses, we don't change the rate of infection. We hope to modify in at least a small portion of the people the duration of symptoms.
Click to expand...

" We hope to modify in at least a small portion of the people the duration of symptoms."


Who is "we"?
 
It's because of the siloed nature of our education. And so being intelligent doesn't equate to knowing, right? And so unfortunately our education is siloed between clinical management and then another silo, clinical research, and then another silo, basic science research. Very, very few clinicians out there that are practicing medicine have ever spent any significant amount of time in a basic science research lab. That's relegated to the PhDs. And so you got PhDs over here doing this, developing tests like PCR, everything else, learning what that means. You've got a group over here of clinicians that are constantly being told that they have new toolboxes of therapeutics from the pharmaceutical industry, or diagnostics from the radiology industry, or laboratory chemical analysis through Quest laboratories or whatever it is.
 
And so when Quest labs comes along and says, "We have a new PCR test to diagnose Corona virus." There's no question that, we don't have anything in our educational background that would trigger a question of is that valid? If Quest labs, which is our most trusted source of laboratory stuff in my clinic or Lab Corp or any of these big national labs comes along and says, "Hey, we have this new test." The physician automatically assumes, "Well certainly they did their due diligence to show that this test actually is clinically significant or irrelevant to my patient. Who's showing up with a question of whether or not they have this virus in their bloodstream."
 
And so that's the assumption we made not knowing what PCR even means really. So PCR means Polymerase Chain Reaction, is a methodology that was developed in genomics to be able to amplify tiny, tiny little signals or the tiniest presence of genetic information. And so with PCR, it's a very powerful way for us to determine what genetic decisions is a cell making at any given moment. And so in my lab, we can do PCR even for mitochondria that are a little microbes that live inside the human cells, and we can see what genomic decisions and what proteins they're making and all of that based on PCR.
 
And we're talking about tiny micro, micro nano particle strips of nucleotide sequences that you can pick up with PCR. And the way that you do it is you run an assay if it amplifies almost everything in the background there, and then you run it again and amplify everything, you've just amplified. And then you run it again and amplify everything you just amplified twice. And so with PCR, you can run this 150 times, and by the time you've run it a hundred times or whatever, you're finding genetic information that is maybe circulating in your mother's womb. You're down at this trace, trace level of nucleotide sequences, this might've been a bacteria that you breathed in a week ago, that's now filtered out of your system. But in the process, it happened to make some genomic information in the form of RNA that sequenced into your bloodstream for a moment. And you can pick that up by PCR.
 
So when you start to amplify and cycle and cycle PCR, it gives you a completely inaccurate look at what's actually going in your body today. And that's, the danger with starting to say, "This is a diagnostic tool." Is what you can say is, "Yeah, somebody has some symptoms of upper respiratory and stuff," or shows up with chest pain and a heart attack and you run a PCR and it says, "Oh, you have COVID-19." No, all that means is that person may have walked by somebody, their body never expressed the virus in any amount. Their body was in total balance with it, they never got sick from that virus, they're presenting with a true heart attack, but they have enough of that genomic sequence that you're now amplifying that.
 
And it's only in the last week or two that we see some of the States Governors starting to realize that they're being tricked into making emergency decision- making on this fallacy of testing. And they're starting to demand that the labs that are doing these rapid PCR tests publish with the results, how many times did you amplify that before you got a signal of that? And that's what we should have done at the beginning. And we should have set a threshold for relevance. We should have said, "If you need to amplify this more than five times, there's no way this is an active clinical infection." And so we should have set a threshold .......
 
But the fact is it's way less than 25 and 40 times, which is the typical average that you're seeing these labs run when they're doing screening for Corona virus. So the methodology is severely flawed. The reason why doctors are being deployed in masks to do this is because they don't understand the technology. They don't understand because they were never practicing that technology and they were never asked to even understand it. They just said, "The only thing that doctor needs to know is what is the CPT code? What is the insurance code? So that you can order the test and bill it to insurance." That's as far as we go as clinicians in understanding it, we don't understand how we get sodium measured in blood, but we order basic chemistry and get sodium, potassium, all the electrolytes. But none of us think about how the hell did that lab figure it out. That sodium is 135 milligrams per deciliter. We don't know, we don't care. We're data and analysis team, we are not the beta production team.
 
And so that's the danger of something like this being rolled out by something like the WHO or the CDC that says, "Oh, we have this test." And your clinician of course is like, "Well, certainly the CDC is only going to recommend a test that's clinically relevant." If it's not, there's no stop gap. There's no checks and balances in our current public health policy to allow us to make intelligent decisions about those testing.
 
So, an example of the heart attack that we just used. Somebody shows up with chest pain and you're concerned that their oxygen maybe registers at that 93% or 94% slightly below the normal bell curve. And so you're like, "Oh, I wonder if they have Corona virus and therefore they're presenting with a heart attack." And you run a COVID-19 PCR screening test that comes back positive. It totally changes your mindset as a physician. You stop thinking as a clinician, you start reacting to a data set instead of looking at your patient. And so this is a common phenomenon. It's not hard to imagine as a clinician, how we could be so misled to think, "Oh my God, our hospital is full of Corona virus patients." When in fact our hospital's full of some Corona virus patients, some pneumonia patients, some influenza patients, a bunch of heart attack patients, a bunch of cancer patients, but we keep reading it as Corona, Corona, Corona.
 
And it's led to tragic mistakes at the clinical level over and over again. Examples, just in my little sphere, I'm a part-time clinician, now I don't see patients every day, but even in my tiny little patient contact every month, I have examples of tragic mistakes that were made in the hospital systems. For example, a young woman aged 34 or five, she presented with hypoxia, weird changes in her white blood cell count, confusion, neurologic symptoms, was just out of it. And it seemed to come out of the blue. And the labs were bizarre, her white blood cell, red blood cell counts all of this. And so immediately the clinicians were like, "This must be," having never actually seen a case of COVID-19 in their clinic, they said, "This must be COVID-19." Ran a PCR and it was negative and saying, it wasn't even there. And they had heard that maybe there was a 20% false, positive, or false negative rate to the PCRs. They're like, "Well she must still have Corona virus."
 
And so they sent her to the hospital and said, "We suspect clinical, the test is negative, we think this is COVID-19." So the hospital then has to go through ridiculous measures. Everybody has to gown up, treat them like a hazmat patient. This woman now nobody can touch her, nobody can go in the room, nobody is now talking to the woman because they're all thinking COVID-19. So nobody's taking a good clinical history, which is only place you ever make an accurate diagnostic decision to treat is talk to the freaking patient, and talk to them about their last three, six months. Maybe this isn't even an acute issue.
 
Well it hadn't been an acute issue. She had been having stuttering neurologic symptoms for months. By the time she died, two weeks later, they had run 12 COVID-19 screening tests. All of them were negative, but they couldn't break themselves out of the mindset of this is a patient dying from Corona virus because she had what they had heard were the symptoms of hypoxia and weird things in the bloodstream, maybe in liver failure, ultimately kidney failure. And she dies of multi organ failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top