A change in surveillance can also enhance the appearance of a new disease. In past years, healthy people have never been tested for influenza disease. If you test more people with a non-specific test, of course you will find more cases of people exposed to the family of coronaviruses that cause the common cold. The test is not proving that SARSCov-2 is present in these people. The average lay-person does not understand these differences in disease statistics, and they are being deliberately misled by the medical-industry reporting in the media.
Disease diagnosis is a grey area of medicine. Changes in diagnostic criteria and extra surveillance can be used to create the appearance of an increase in one disease and a decrease in another. The more surveillance you do in healthy people, the more cases you will find if you are not using a test with high specificity for the SARSCov-2 virus, and this is the case for COVID19; neither the RT-PCR tests, nor the antibody tests are virus specific.
Here is what the public health authorities say about the specificity of the antibody test in identifying COVID19. The FDA says that “antibody tests should not be used to diagnose an active COVID19 infection.” Testing positive means you most likely have immunity for some strains of coronaviruses. The CDC confirms that the test does not distinguish antibodies to specific strains. Thus, it cannot indicate that you have been exposed to the SARSCov2 strain, only that you may have had the common cold coronavirus strain at some time.
This testing of healthy people allows the media and the medical-industry to misuse the positive results to exaggerate the risk of a new virus in the community - even though this virus is not being identified with any of the laboratory tests used to diagnose COVID19 disease.
The other test being used for diagnosis is the RT-PCR test. However, both the FDA and the inventor of the test, who won a Nobel Prize, stated that this is not a diagnostic tool and it has not been licensed as a diagnostic tool. In other words, the causal agent, SARSCOV-2 cannot be identified with this test, and it is not being identified in any of the cases or deaths reported for this disease.
The PCR test cannot identify a whole natural RNA virus. It only magnifies segments of the RNA genome that do not provide proof that SARSCov2 is present in the tissue sample. There are also many other viruses, bacteria, and non-infectious agents that can cause the neurological damage being observed in these deaths, and no attempt is being made to prove that causality is due to this new mutated strain of coronavirus with a licensed diagnostic test.
The FDA states that ‘The detection of RNA by the PCR test does not equate with an infectious agent.’
When the Australian government was recently asked, under the Freedom of Information Act, to provide “a document that shows there is a test that 100% positively identifies the causal agent, SARSCov2, and not other coronaviruses” the government’s response was “no relevant documents have been located.”
In other words, there is no test that is identifying the SARSCov2 virus in any of the cases or deaths that are being diagnosed and reported as COVID19 disease. Additionally, we know that the majority of the deaths are in the elderly demographic who all have co-morbidity.
In previous years, the deaths would have been attributed to the underlying health issues, but this year they are labelled as COVID19 even if the virus is only suspected. This year, the Australian and other governments are providing financial incentives for doctors and institutions to label the deaths and cases as COVID19, without laboratory confirmation and based only on suspected cases and estimates.