Let's talk about tests.

Note: Today’s post is the first in a series regarding the reality surrounding the tests being used to diagnose HIV and COVID. There is a lot to unpack here, so I’m breaking it up to make it more digestible. I aim to complete this series by the weekend.

With all the discussion and debate surrounding vaccines, and the obvious dangers of mandating them, I want to bring awareness to the issue of testing. I fully believe that mandated and/or forced testing is just as existentially and practically important as the concept of mandated and/or forced vaccines. Both are compelling an individual to submit to a medical procedure they do not want and probably do not understand. Both are invasions of privacy, and both have disastrous consequences in terms of public and private health. I truly believe the epidemic of testing is far more dangerous than we imagine.

Thinking about this post about tests, I reread the following passage that I wrote fourteen years ago: "Even if we throw away the causation issue [...] the fact remains that the HIV antibody tests have been used as a weapon of discrimination ever since testing began. I can think of no other medical test that is used the way the HIV antibody test is used." (Emphasis added.)

It took more than ten years, but the medical establishment has managed to one-up itself and create a test that is at least as unreliable as the HIV tests, and is being used in a similarly discriminatory way. In a move of strategic laziness, they use the exact same technology that cannot diagnose HIV to diagnose COVID. So one could reasonably ask the question, do the COVID tests diagnose COVID accurately? To answer that, we have to answer the question of what COVID is, exactly, as well as to learn a few things about the technology that informs the mainstream understanding about HIV and AIDS. This series of posts will address the second concern, while the first will be addressed in a future post.

In this series, I will be going over the history of the development of the HIV antibody tests (there are different types) as well as the “viral load” PCR test. (This should be starting to sound familiar.) We’ll talk about how isolation of a virus is imperative in developing diagnostic tests for a virus and how that isolation is performed. We’ll also discuss how false positives and false negatives actually work, and the legal status of these tests for use in diagnosis. It's a lot, but it is crucial to understanding the current pandemic, as well as the AIDS epidemic, because all the statistics about the state of both outbreaks are inferred on the basis of the results of the laboratory tests that are being used in diagnosis. If the tests are flawed, then EVERY statistic you hear about COVID or HIV is *irrelevant*.

This cannot be overstated. Basing decisions on tests alone, when said tests don’t do what they claim to do, when they weren’t even designed to do what they claim to do, is corrupt to the point that those decisions made are effectively random.

In my next post I will discuss the history of the development of the HIV tests and testing protocol, as well as what magical combination of positive tests it takes to earn a diagnosis of "HIV positive". Until then, I leave you with the question: If a diagnostic test can demonstrably and provably NOT diagnose the illness it is claimed to diagnose, why would we use the statistics about that illness that are derived specifically from these tests?

More to come.