Also from what I understand, Antibodies are non-specific. When an immune response is mounted by the body a number of antibodies appear to knock out the toxin. So not sure how they are using antibodies to definitely pinpoint the presence of Covid; but at the same time it could be suggestive of the presence of the same toxin (mounted immune response to a vaccine).
Also from what I understand, Antibodies are non-specific. When an immune response is mounted by the body a number of antibodies appear to knock out the toxin. So not sure how they are using antibodies to definitely pinpoint the presence of Covid; but at the same time it could be suggestive of the presence of the same toxin (mounted immune response to a vaccine).
Your innate antibodies (IGA & IGM) are nonspecific (ie they recognize self vs non-self).
The acquired/adaptive antibodies (IGG) are tailor made to fit surface proteins (antigen) on the nucleocapsid &, in coronaviruses, the spike.
Antibody tests are made to react with antigen that is specific to the pathogen being looked for.
They aren't 100% specific, which can cause false + with other coronaviruses. That is why early on with the antibody tests they confirmed positive antibody tests with pcr.
But then to confirm antibody tests with a non diagnostic tool such as PCR which itself is non-specific?
Are there any papers/tests to confirm that those same acquired/adaptive antibodies aren’t a result of purely a vaccine (flu or Covid) or anything else (someone that isn’t PCR positive and never had the virus)?
Oh there is no doubt they gamed the whole thing. I was just explaining how things normally work.
Rapid antibody tests are rarely 100% specific, but combined with signs & symptoms, very reliable.
And PCR done correctly confirms exposure, but never in itself diagnostic.
The PCR for covid was done incorrectly, with technical & mathematical errors.
I saw the conclusion of an independent peer review of the initial paper the whole response was based on, performed by a large group of researchers.
Two things jumped out at me:
1. They relied on a *theoretical* sequencing of the virus provided by China, &
2. They only tested for 2 sequences instead of 3, which is the industry standard.
Remember way back when they 1st came out with the test kits for the state CDCs? There were 3 tests, but there was a delay because 1 of the tests was failing QC at most of the labs.
They looked into it, determined there was a problem with manufacturing. And then, Fauxi decided it was ok to just use 2 tests.
That was not ok, because statistically that dramatically reduced the specificity of the test, opening to door to a much greater false positives.
Also from what I understand, Antibodies are non-specific. When an immune response is mounted by the body a number of antibodies appear to knock out the toxin. So not sure how they are using antibodies to definitely pinpoint the presence of Covid; but at the same time it could be suggestive of the presence of the same toxin (mounted immune response to a vaccine).
Your innate antibodies (IGA & IGM) are nonspecific (ie they recognize self vs non-self).
The acquired/adaptive antibodies (IGG) are tailor made to fit surface proteins (antigen) on the nucleocapsid &, in coronaviruses, the spike.
Antibody tests are made to react with antigen that is specific to the pathogen being looked for.
They aren't 100% specific, which can cause false + with other coronaviruses. That is why early on with the antibody tests they confirmed positive antibody tests with pcr.
But then to confirm antibody tests with a non diagnostic tool such as PCR which itself is non-specific?
Are there any papers/tests to confirm that those same acquired/adaptive antibodies aren’t a result of purely a vaccine (flu or Covid) or anything else (someone that isn’t PCR positive and never had the virus)?
Oh there is no doubt they gamed the whole thing. I was just explaining how things normally work.
Rapid antibody tests are rarely 100% specific, but combined with signs & symptoms, very reliable.
And PCR done correctly confirms exposure, but never in itself diagnostic.
The PCR for covid was done incorrectly, with technical & mathematical errors.
I saw the conclusion of an independent peer review of the initial paper the whole response was based on, performed by a large group of researchers.
Two things jumped out at me:
1. They relied on a *theoretical* sequencing of the virus provided by China, &
2. They only tested for 2 sequences instead of 3, which is the industry standard.
Remember way back when they 1st came out with the test kits for the state CDCs? There were 3 tests, but there was a delay because 1 of the tests was failing QC at most of the labs.
They looked into it, determined there was a problem with manufacturing. And then, Fauxi decided it was ok to just use 2 tests.
That was not ok, because statistically that dramatically reduced the specificity of the test, opening to door to a much greater false positives.