Archived Kung Flu Hoax: Ten more experts are critical of the ridiculous Corona hysteria (zerohedge.com)
submitted ago by TFS
Posted by: TFS
Posting time: 9 months ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 6/30/2020 10:00:00 AM
Views: 30
SCP: 6
8 upvotes, 2 downvotes (80% upvoted it)
Archived Kung Flu Hoax: Ten more experts are critical of the ridiculous Corona hysteria (zerohedge.com)
submitted ago by TFS
view the rest of the comments →
[–] SpottyMatt ago (edited ago)
That study is from 2006, and is about the tests used in the 2003 original SARS-CoV virus in by a laboratory in British Colombia, Canada.
While it's about a related virus to be sure, I don't see indications that it investigated the Chinese (or US CDC)-produced tests being used for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, which were created in late 2019 at the earliest and test for a virus which was unknown in 2006.
That study could be taken to indicate that the current SARS-CoV-2 tests should be more-aggressively scrutinized than normal, especially for false-positives caused by other coronaviruses (and we should be pushing for this and other kinds of validation against the current SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests), but that study
[–] TFS [S] ago
Are you seriously suggesting that the Covid-19 test kits which are being used in the US and around the world are reliable, even though CDC came out and said their own test kits were flawed? The test kits that were shipped from China were also found to be unreliable. Malaysia have also had the same problem. This has been in so many papers. There is so much info one can find about this on the internet. Do a search for "Corona test kits false positive" and see for yourself.
[–] SpottyMatt ago (edited ago)
I am saying that that study is not about the current virus nor about the current test kits, and proves nothing about either of those things. At best, it raises suspicion which would need to be confirmed before acting on as fact.
The Chinese test kits have been claimed to be unreliable, but I have not seen an actual study evaluating the degree to which they were unreliable (or even proving it). I'd believe they were unreliable, but I'm not going to pretend that it's established fact when it hasn't actually been proven.