Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun View Post
Sure. Here is the original article from what I saw.

Here is a fact checking article on that article which really doesn’t do a great job of fact checking, they could have gone much further but it’s a decent start.

There have been other articles people have linked from “Global Research” which are basically conspiracy theorists and anti-science. A google search of their website should return a nice yield in why that website is not valid.

I could go on but there are some posts in this forum that sum up nicely why it’s garbage fake news.
I don't know what the "Global Research" you refer to is, and I haven't heard of Off-Guardian where the article came from either. But if they're garbage like CNN from the other side, I'll take you word.

How about these accounts of false positives?
http://www.int-soc-clin-geriat.com/i...SARS-CoV-2.pdf
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...onavirus-tests (check the preprint linked in here as well).

The problem with the PCR "nearly all tests tested at 100% specificity" you cite in a separate post, is that these are done clinically, where the tests are administered, handled, run and reported flawlessly. What really happens in the real world is entirely different.

I know enough about analytical testing to know what is going on now is not ideal. Multiple tests from dozens of manufacturers, all rushed to the market without properly developed standard operating procedures for testing, quality control measures for both sample collection and sample analysis, and sloppy data management.

My point is that we are putting a lot of stake in the accuracy of these tests, much more than they deserve. We need to be careful.