It’s been said lots of times in various obscure ways, but it needs telling like it is:

There is simply no correlation between results of viral tests and specific clinical disease. None.

We all know that you can have:

• A positive test result and all the symptoms
• Positive test result and none of the symptoms (hence “false positive”, or “carrier”; perfectly healthy, in other words)
• Negative result and symptoms (you must have some other illness)
• Negative result and no symptoms.
• Nothing at all or something else entirely
• etc

So many permutations of symptoms (related or not), positives, negatives, false positives and negatives etc.

What is staring us in the face, therefore, is that there is absolutely no consistent relation between virological lab results and the clinical condition of the patient. And the reasons given are all semantic and circular.

In fact, by far the most common presentation for a “positive case”, is absolutely no symptoms at all and being perfectly healthy. And you can apply that to practically any viral disease known. Symptoms mild or strong may present, but there is absolutely no way to know if they have any relation to the virus, since you could in fact be having “a similar illness” and a false positive.

In order to address these inconsistencies there is an endless moving of goalposts, such as making up new disease names to account for the mismatch. This is not science. The name for this is “making it up as you go along”.

Hence 85% of flu cases in fact have no flu virus detected, so somebody has decided to call them “flu-like illness”. It is pure semantics: there is no science in calling these separate conditions. And therefore there is no systematic reason for associating them with the presence of any virus. It has just happened that way, and in the absence of a more lucrative theory, this one has stuck. In fact it has been pushed relentlessly despite all logic screaming against it; and certainly not for lack of other good ideas.

Worse still is that healthy people may be placed on dangerous prophylactic drug regimes, sometimes for decades, because of nothing more than a colour change in a test tube in a lab. Such is the power over us of the superstition of the viral disease.

I’m not a fan of Occam’s Razor, but we must at least consider the simplest explanation. Suppose that virology itself is deeply flawed, that it is just wrong. Surely that is much simpler than non-contagious asymptomatic carriers (whatever that means), repeat infections with the exact same virus (never before proposed in virology, but never in fact ruled out either), long latency periods and all the other unproven nonsense that just gets thrown about like confetti whenever the theory doesn’t fit the facts.

What if the viral tests are completely meaningless? Does that leave us with any reason at all to save the virus?

I mean, take flu. Supposedly you can have:

• Symptoms and flu virus
• Symptoms and no flu virus (let’s just call it flu like illness then)
• Flu virus and no symptoms (carrier, or strong immune system)
• etc etc.

Similar picture to before. So what does a test result for flu actually demonstrate? With a positive result you may or may not be healthy. With a negative result you may or may not be healthy. If you have flu symptoms, a positive result doesn’t prove that flu virus is the cause: it just says that it might be there (even assuming it’s a valid result).

On to current affairs

Apparently loss of sense of smell is now thought to be a clearer sign than a cough. Clearer sign of what?

Supposedly this disease is a precise thing: but, many months into this they haven’t even decided what the most significant feature are. Six months ago this was a disease that makes people keel over in the street, vomiting blood. Now it might be a disease that mainly causes you to lose your sense of smell. Next year what will it mainly be? Halitosis? Ingown toenails? Social anxiety?

They have an imprecise test for a disease that still hasn’t been fully defined. And the test itself even by conventional standards is understood to be plagued by false positives.

Honestly, I’m not sure I even accept the term “false positive” anymore, since that presupposes that there is such a thing as a true positive, which presupposes that the results of the test have a clear meaning. And if they haven’t even defined the clinical disease, and if there is no correlation between symptom picture and test result, then what meaning does the test result have?

It’s all a semantic trick. Like drug side-effects. There are no side effects; only effects. And with lab tests there are no false positives: there is only chemistry, and it is always right. The issue is how we extract meaning from that chemistry.

How much more demolition does this require? Many worthy books and papers have been written on this. The commentary on this has been practically endless. And still people say “What do you mean? I had flu, the test confirmed it”.

After carefully reading one lengthy book on the subject, my wife nailed the entire issue in a one-liner: “Basically, the PCR test is bogus, and the whole pandemic is based on the PCR test, right?”.

Bingo.

In medicine, the most important consideration is the actual condition of the patient. Without that, what point medicine anyway? When did we lose it?

The second most important consideration is the causation, and that’s a massive subject. And complete inconsistency – between effect, supposed cause, and test for supposed cause – provides no basis whatsoever for diagnosis. The endless fudging we now get instead provides endless disease and hence endless revenue for the drug companies, but it amounts to little more than superstition. Importantly, it isn’t solving the problem of actual disease.

So, once again, perhaps the simplest explanation is that the viral theory of disease is completely inadequate. That possibility ought at least to get some consideration. What is hard to explain, however, is that so many people find this impossible to see.

 

 

 

~