By David James
Therapeutic Goods Administration, a government office, claims there is “little evidence” to assess “clinical utility” of PCR or blood tests
Imagine going to a doctor suspecting you may have a serious illness and being told that there are 2 tests available. With the first test, a swab, they do not know, should you record a positive result, whether or not you have the disease. With the second test, a blood test, they know for certain that the test is of no value in detecting the disease.
Would a patient find that situation satisfactory? Obviously not.
Yet that is exactly what the Australian government is admitting is the situation with its coronavirus testing. It is on the Therapeutics Goods Administration web site for “health professionals”:
The extent to which a positive PCR result correlates with the infectious state of an individual is still being determined.”
And:
There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.”
[We also have a screenshot, just in case they take the info down – ed.]
In other words, what are risibly described as the health ‘authorities’ do not know whether, if a person tests positive, they are infected or not. The TGA also admits that the ‘reliability of the evidence’ is uncertain because of the ‘limited evidence base’.
They know their PCR tests are dodgy and the serology tests are useless, so they are hiding it in plain sight in the hope that no-one picks up on it.
Yet testing positive is what is being called a ‘case’ (a word that usually applies people who are obviously sick) and the rise in so-called ‘cases’ is being used as the rationale for abusive and absurd lockdowns in Melbourne (where this writer lives).
Worse, most of the population has believed the propaganda and is more than willing to turn on any fellow citizens who have a different view, demonising them as ‘so selfish’ and cheering when they are subjected to fines of tens of thousands of dollars.
Meanwhile, the number of serious and critical patients (which should be the real definition of a ‘case’) has not risen above 70 in Australia since the pandemic scare started – in a population of 24 million. The per capita deaths are about 26 per million over a six month period, a fraction of the toll in other countries.
Worse, the same dodgy practices about causes of death have been followed in Australia as happened elsewhere. The chief health officer in Victoria admitted that they were not testing for the virus, just assuming that if there were flu-like symptom it must be COVID-19. Deaths by flu in Australia, it should be added, are running unusually low.
The blood tests are even worse. The Doherty Institute has tested about half a dozen of the serological (blood) tests and concluded in each case:
Overall, our findings continue to support recent position statements by the Public Health Laboratory Network (PHLN) and the Royal College of Pathologists Australasia (RCPA) that serological assays have limited, if any, role in the diagnosis of acute COVID-19 infection.”
This conclusion has been replicated elsewhere. Beaumont Health in Michigan ran a longitudinal study, starting in mid-April, which was supposed to look at the rates of infection in health workers exposed to the virus. It was based on large scale serological testing.
So what did the study’s conclusion (which was not easy to locate): Read more…