The dangers of antibody testing …

This is a brief excerpt from The Infectious Myth, a Book Project by David Crowe. A chapter of the book is titled Antibody Testing for COVID-19. That chapter is 23 pages including footnotes.

Crowe is a Canadian researcher, and I have found him, like Dr. Andy Kaufman, to be diligent in all his work, and modest in temperament. They each realize that being wrong is always a possibility. That makes their research a faithful pursuit of truth, that is, they do their work aware of their own shortcomings. It is refreshing.

This excerpt begins on page 3. It discusses the current testing that is going on for antibodies to SARS-Cov-2, a hard thing to do given that this virus, said to cause COVID-19, has never been isolated and purified. They are short a gold standard of certainty of what they are doing. They could as easily and unknowingly be testing for measles.

A large number of population surveys have been compiled by Dean Beeler and they reveal a wide range of percentages of populations antibody positive, from less than 1% in many cases to 32% in a poor part of Boston. This is generally seen as an indication of how far through the population that the virus has rampaged. One flaw of most of these surveys is that the population is chosen non-randomly, and does not represent the general population. The group may be a household survey, volunteers, high school students and staff, health care workers, blood donors, or people going for blood tests at a lab.

But a far bigger problem is that the number produced is impossible to validate. When 1.5% of Santa Clara volunteers tested positive, it was assumed that that was truth. This ‘truth’ asserts that all of these people were RNA-positive at some point in the recent past. But there is absolutely no evidence for this.

The ‘truth’ assumes that all the people were negative for COVID-19 antibodies prior to the assumed period of RNA-positivity. But there is absolutely no evidence for this.It assumes that the 98.5% who tested negative were never RNA-positive. But there is absolutely no evidence for this. It assumes that the 98.5% never had the antibodies being looked for before. But there is absolutely no evidence for this.

I could assert that the real fraction positive in Santa Clara was 98.5%, not 1.5%, and there is no less evidence for my assertion than for the results from antibody testing.

These surveys often ask if people who tested antibody positive had ‘COVID-like’ symptoms in the last few weeks or months (and most say that they did not). But these symptoms (fever, cough, loss of smell or taste, fatigue) are so generic that they are absolutely not evidence that the people were previously COVID-19 RNA positive.

…

Antibody tests might be fatally flawed, but they can be used in highly destructive ways. If the number of people who are antibody positive remains below the level of ‘herd immunity’ (90% or so) it will be an excuse to promote or even mandate vaccination, after a vaccine is rushed onto the market. Antibody tests could also be used to indefinitely quarantine people who do not test positive, asserting that they are at danger of becoming infected, and then spreading it to others. They could be used to separate families, arguing that the children must be put in foster homes because the parents are at risk of an infection at any time.

Faulty tests have been used to indefinitely quarantine Chinese citizens. But now, do we have more civil rights in the UK, United States, Canada or other modern, once democratic countries? [My emphasis]