Part 1 of 2: Next Installation - Media Violation Reporting Vaccine Safety Against Documentation of Government, Vaccine Trial, & European Investigation (to be published)
-Common media narratives on Covid-19 policies and health directives are severely contradicted by evidence and data from the FDA, CDC, WHO, testing manufacturers, and pharmaceutical company vaccine trial data
-Review of New York States Baseline Standard for Measurement of Covid-19 infection rates utilizing Wadsworth antibody testing reveals testing protocols that will generate up to 100% false positives test results due to protocol recommendations and test method errors
-Wadsworth antibody testing documentation states the company did not have Sars CoV2 antibody material to develop baseline standards for development of Sars CoV2 antibody tests, instead utilizing biotin-streptavidin technology,
-Biotin is flagged for false positive error for Wadsworth Covid-19 Antibody tests, 70% of the population take a multi-vitamin, many with a B7 vitamin (Biotin) component in the supplement and biotin naturally occurs in food
-the FDA issued a warning in 2017 flagging false positive test results which covers the biotin-streptavidin technology utilized in New York State for baseline case determination of Covid-19 antibody testing due to the above issue, this warning is not included on public information sheets by the state
-PCR & Antigen emergency use testing present with similar accuracy and reliability issues with FDA, WHO, CDC issuing numerous statements flagging testing errors with these products. States are not incorporating new public health recommendation from public health organizations into Covid-19 testing protocols
-Over 260 Covid-19 Tests Formerly Approved for Emergency Use Have Been Recalled by FDA Due to Serious Problems or Company Failing to Providing Proper Documentation to Meet Testing Minimum Standards, Millions Covid-19Tests Recalled for Bacterial and other contamination issues
Media organizations are required to meet FCC standards for responsible news reporting. The FCC guidelines specifically state:
"FCC rules specifically say that the "public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties."
There is a serious case to be made right not that the media is actively going against FCC rules in reporting on Covid-19 information to the public.
The media is failing to practice due basic due diligence in reviewing widely available public evidence from the government public health organizations, testing manufacturers, and vaccine trial reports. Much of this information contradicts many common narratives presented by the media on Covid-19 science, policy and protocols.
Additionally, some media agencies continue to report information to the public that is actively contradicted by the news organizations own prior news reoprts.
Take for example the news media reporting standards for reporting Covid-19 cases:
For months, one of the top images appearing on media news outlet websites are charts presenting the 'official' number of Covid-19 cases and mortality rates. The numbers are repeated ad-nauseam to millions of people ever day by news casters, and presented to the public as factual, scientifically supported data representing the true numbers of Covid-19 infections & morality rates occurring in the United States.
These numbers, by no credible scientific standard, represent an accurate accounting of Covid-19 cases. The numbers are based on severely flawed Covid-19 testing protocols and methods, with testing flaws extensively documented by WHO, FDA, and peer review research. Covid-19 morbidity numbers are determined by criteria that will capture deaths unrelated to Covid-19 infection, ascertained by such loose standards, there can be no confidence the deaths actually were caused by a Sars CoV2 infection. (Please review documentation on Covid-19 morbidity assessment HERE).
Additionally, RT PCR tests (the standard and most widely used testing method to assign a Covid-19 diagnosis) are continued to be run at Cycle Threshold rates that have been shown to create majority false positives through over amplification of test sample material, rates that Dr Anthony Fauci stated would detect 'dead nucleotides period' on July 16, 2020. (dead, non infectious, non contagious materials).
Despite the New York Times running a story on this issue last August 29, the paper continues to report the government number as cases on its official map, seen here:
Why does the New York Times report case numbers to the public that the media outlet knows are being created on faulty testing protocol recommendations flaws that remain uncorrected to this day?
(FDA Cycle Threshold testing recommendations remain at levels that will produce false positives at 40 CT, state labs run the tests up to 45 CT)
Additionally, the Times, instead of working to highlight the PCR testing cycle error for correction in their August 29 story, inexplicably pushed for Antigen testing as a solution to the problem.
Antigen testing has since been exposed to have severe reliability issues, and been found to generate up to 100% false positive data when implemented in low incident population groups for Covid-19 infections. The FDA issued a statement on November 3, 2020 warning of this issue, right before the 'second wave' when the majority of American communities were at extremely low incident rates. States ignored this update and administered tens of millions of antigen tests, rates skyrocketed (as FDA projected), while hospitalizations and morbidity rates remained flat, highly indicating that the test were generating false positive result as warned by the FDA.
Also, all media is failing to do the most BASIC due diligence in simple fact checking of data on how the testing numbers are compiled by the New York State government:
(This extends, of course, to other states, but for sake of direct review, New York State will be utilized as an example).
For an example, the method the New York government is using to determine baseline Covid-19 infection rates through antibody testing is flagged for VERY severe reliability and accuracy issues through a cursory review of FDA & testing company information and data:
"New York State is conducting an antibody testing survey to develop a baseline infection rate. The preliminary results of phase two show 14.9 percent of the population have COVID-19 antibodies. The preliminary results of phase one of the state's antibody testing survey released on April 23rd showed 13.9 percent of the population have COVID-19 antibodies.
Antibody testing is non-specific to Sars CoV2 according to the CDC website, however, NYS guidance attempts to circumnavigate this problem with this statement on the site's public health information sheet:
*Note: A reactive result may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 strains. However, specificity for the Wadsworth Center (WC) SARS-CoV-2 IgG test has been determined to be 93 to 100%. Therefore, significant cross-reactivity to other known respiratory viruses is not expected.
This statement from the New York government website on test specificity is completely false because a test specificity rate of 93% would translate to near a 100% false positive rate according to the testing manufacturer and FDA statement information when used in low incidence populations, and test specificity DROPS in populations with respiratory illnesses indicating cross reactivity is occurring (more on this below).
The FDA utilizes a formula to determine basic estimate of expected false positives with antigen and antibody tests. The lower the number of infections in the population, the higher number of tests will be false positive results. The reason is testing specificity and positive predictive values:
Many people (logically) assume that if there is a 1% error rate, this means that 99 out of a hundred individuals will have a true positive test.
This is not the case.
The number is generated from all the TESTS administered, not just the false positive test results with a FDA formula for generating positive predictive values of tests.
Examine the formula the FDA uses for determining positive predictive value and expected rate of false positives for testing:
The Wadsworth test has a positive predictive value of 80% for populations who have a five percent Covid-19 population incidence of Covid-19 infections (population incidence = how many cases of Covid-19 in given population)
Specificity & PPV in Special Populations including Respiratory Illness is LOWER:
The lower the population incidence, the higher the inaccuracy of the test.
Here is how the FDA calculates positive predictive values:
"Remember that positive predictive value (PPV) varies with disease prevalence when interpreting results from diagnostic tests. PPV is the percent of positive test results that are true positives. As disease prevalence decreases, the percent of test results that are false positives increase.
For example, a test with 98% specificity would have a PPV of just over 80% in a population with 10% prevalence, meaning 20 out of 100 positive results would be false positives.
The same test would only have a PPV of approximately 30% in a population with 1% prevalence, meaning 70 out of 100 positive results would be false positives. This means that, in a population with 1% prevalence, only 30% of individuals with positive test results actually have the disease.
At 0.1% prevalence, the PPV would only be 4%, meaning that 96 out of 100 positive results would be false positives.
Health care providers should take the local prevalence into consideration when interpreting diagnostic test results
As you can see the number is entirely dependent on population incidence of Covid-19 infections in a town, county, state.
Additionally, since states administer the tests in low incident population area and are NOT accounting for expected false positives with the FDA formulas, faulty data will drive inaccurate case numbers and creates a scenario where false positive results will drive up inaccurate case numbers.
However, it becomes even more egregious because according to a statement of the FDA EUA Serology Antibody testing page:
We do not currently know the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive individuals in the U.S. population, and prevalence may change based on the duration the virus is in the country and the effectiveness of mitigations.
This means the figures are based on estimates of projected cases, not raw case numbers. The FDA is admitting here the organization lacks the foundational raw data to determine infection percentages.
And, any estimates are SEVERELY compromised due extreme errors generated by the PCR testing and antigen testing methods and protocols which have been documented to create extremely suspect data. Credible peer review deemed the science paper on which PCR Sars CoV2 'useless' for the detection of the virus, and the paper is currently undergoing review for retraction due to the 10 serious flaws documented by the 22 experts who scrutinized the science of the tests.
It is not an overstatement to say, this testing standard is not reliable or accurate to assess Covid-19 baseline infection rates.
And, it gets more egregious.
The Wadsworth New York Summary on serology antibody testing states:
There is no standard reference SARS-CoV-2 antigen material available; accordingly, absolute analytical sensitivity cannot be calculated.
Analytical Specificity Reactivity/lnclusivity Although mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome have been identified as the virus has spread, no serologically unique strains have been described relative to the originally isolated virus (this research is limited at present).
The scientific importance of this statement can not be overstated. The testing is stated to be done to measure Sars CoV2 antigen to produce a positive tests results, yet the test developer is stating here they do NOT have the material available to inform testing development. Instead, the testing utilizes biotin-streptavidin technology with a FDA warning for false positive results due to the biotin assay.
Further, there is no STANDARD reference, i.e. uniform frame of reference on which the test developers are basing their testing development standards.
LIMITATION
This test uses biotin-streptavidin technology, and it is possible that biotin will interfere with this assay, however biotin interference has not been evaluated for this assay. The assay might be susceptible to false results in patients taking biotin supplements.
70% of the American public takes a multi-vitamin, many of these vitamins include Biotin as a component. Additionally, Biotin is a popular supplement available as an individual supplement.
Lastly, returning to the original public health information sheet on Wadsworth antibody testing:
*Note: A reactive result may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 strains. However, specificity for the Wadsworth Center (WC) SARS-CoV-2 IgG test has been determined to be 93 to 100%. Therefore, significant cross-reactivity to other known respiratory viruses is not expected.
The second part of the statement is also not accurate and openly contradicted by the test information page on the FDA website:
"False positive results for the New York SARS-CoV Microsphere Immunoassay for Antibody Detection may occur due to cross-reactivity from pre-existing antibodies or other possible causes:.
The above charts document specificity levels DROP in populations with respiratory illness indicating that cross-reactivy IS occurring and decreasing accuracy of tests.
So, in sum, the standard for developing BASE LINE Covid-19 infection rates in New York States is a antibody test:
-developed without Sars CoV2 standard material, as the foundation for test development
instead utilizing Biotin-streptavidin technology and documented to produce false positives by the FDA which issue a warning for this issue that is no included on New York Antibody public fact sheet for this testing
-detect multiple other infectious organisms, test is non specific to Sars Cov2
-has a specificity rate that will create up to 100% false positives when used in the very populations employed most often to study, low incident rate populations and people with suspected respiratory infections -
This level of testing standard is scientifically egregious. It is utilizing severely compromised scientific methodology and testings standards and the public health officials and media are not engaging in the most basic due diligence to review how the Covid-19 testing protocols and methods are being implemented. This story warrants headline news, as countries are now ruling against PCR testing protocols due to the serious issues flagged above with dozens of lawsuits pending around the globe on the evidence documented above:
More troubling, many news organizations have reported on testing problems, and then proceed to recite Covid-19 case number without caveats in their next reports, as if the past report data has no bearing on reporting future data.
It is time for the media to stop acting as stenographers for public health officials and review the actual data available on the FDA and public health websites. This data is not secret and it actively contradicts public health official narratives on case number data.
Follow the Science. PLEASE.
For full information on the testing contamination issue GO HERE:
