Ebola in The USA

As I’ve been pointing out, the standard test for diagnosing Ebola is the PCR, which has many flaws that render it misleading and useless.

Therefore, “diagnosed with Ebola,” through the PCR test, means nothing. “Ebola” could be flu, could be “drinking contaminated water,” could be any number of non-Ebola conditions.

Analogy: you’re flying a plane at night over a land mass your instruments tell you is Greenland—but the instruments often indicate Greenland when they should be reporting Iceland, Alaska, Nova Scotia, Quebec or even Fiji.

So when the authorities report there are 6000 cases of Ebola and 3000 deaths, or when they report that two patients in the US have Ebola, they’re relying on a diagnostic test that can’t confirm any of these assertions is true.

This is verified in spades by a Dept. of Defense manual. The title is: “Joint Project Manager Medical Countermeasures Systems.” It is dated 14 August 2014.

Under the title is the statement: “Manufactured by the Naval Medical Research Center for the US DOD.”

Here is a quote: “

“The EZ1 assay [the PCR test] should not be performed unless the individual has been exposed to or is at risk for exposure to Ebola Zaire virus or has signs and symptoms of infection with Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014) that meet clinical and epidemiologic criteria for testing suspect specimens.”

Translation: “Unless you’re already pretty sure the patient has Ebola—whatever that means—don’t run the test, because the test isn’t all that reliable.”

Not very reassuring. A test is a test. It’s supposed to register a true positive or negative result on anyone.

Here’s another quote:

“[The PCR test] should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Results [of the PCR] are for the presumptive identification of the Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014).”

Translation: “The word ‘presumptive’ means ‘we’re not sure’. And that’s right. We’re not sure. Don’t rely on the PCR for a definitive diagnosis of Ebola.”

Here is the final quote: “The definitive identification of the Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014) requires additional testing and confirmation procedures in consultation with public health or other authorities for whom reporting is required. The diagnosis of Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014) infection must be made based on history, signs, symptoms, exposure likelihood, and other laboratory evidence in addition to the identification of the Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014) by this [PCR] test.”

That’s the capper. It baldly states that other diagnostic tests must be run. I can tell you what those other tests should be. One, purification and direct isolation of the virus from the patient; and two, a test to determine the amount of virus in the patient—because millions and millions of active Ebola virus must be present in the patient to even begin to say he is “an Ebola case.”

And I can tell you these tests are not being run on so-called Ebola patients.

Therefore, this whole “Ebola event” is the blind leading the blind.
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/

I wrote that in 1988, and it applies just as well to Ebola, as I’ve demonstrated.

The two primary diagnostic tests for Ebola—the antibody and the PCR—are completely useless for verifying the presence of millions of Ebola virus in a patient—which is what you need to begin to say that patient is an “Ebola case.”

In 1988 with AIDS, and more recently with Ebola, I’ve explained the list of factors that would make people sick and kill them—factors that have nothing to do with HIV or Ebola virus.

In essence, this is how you create a fake epidemic. Real death, false explanation.

You tie together and link together people who are sick and dying for various reasons, and you claim they’re all dying because of the One Germ.

That gives you a powerful psychological ploy, because people are always looking for the one unified thing that explains a whole host of disturbing facts.

You give them what they want.

They buy it.
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/

A test is not a test.

It took quahog almost an hour to come up with that well reasoned response

This isn't true. A test is not a test. There are screening tests which by design are very sensitive but not very specific (lots of false positives in order to detect all the true positives) and subsequent reflex algorithms which, in combination, are more specific for the agent in question. There are also different tests for different aspects of the infection. PCR is an RNA amplification assay used to detect viral RNA. Because it's an amplification assay it's not good at quantitation but is used as a qualitative +/- outcome. There are quantitation methods that estimate viral load in the sample. There are antigen assays which detect the presence of a virus by determining if anything in the sample reacts with a known viral antibody. These tests are much less expensive than PCR and are generally the first line assay performed. Ultimately, there are antibody assays which are used to identify an immune response by the patient. There is no perfect test, but no one claims there is. Testing algorithms are in place for ebola including RNA, antigen and antibody tests. http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/diagnosis/