In my articles, I've now identified at least 153 "antibody-confirmed" cases of "early" Covid. All - or the vast majority - of these cases would have occurred in November 2019 or even earlier.
The counter-argument to my journalism is that these antibody results must have been producing "false positives" (probably from "cross-reactivity" to…
In my articles, I've now identified at least 153 "antibody-confirmed" cases of "early" Covid. All - or the vast majority - of these cases would have occurred in November 2019 or even earlier.
The counter-argument to my journalism is that these antibody results must have been producing "false positives" (probably from "cross-reactivity" to other viruses).
Okay, for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that 90 percent of the people who tested positive for antibodies actually didn't have Covid. Ninety percent of these test results were "false positives."
Okay, what about the other 10 percent?
This would leave us with at least 15 people around the world (10 percent of 153) who DID have legitimate positive antibody results that were Covid cases. (This would actually be 30 people as we don't know the identify of the 15 unknown virus-transmitters who infected the 15 people who later tested positive).
Question: How do the experts explain these 30 cases? If they all had Covid, the virus was "spreading" and didn't originate in Wuhan in November 2019 (as these people had not been to Wuhan or been infected by anyone who had been to Wuhan).
So, really, this knowledge/conclusion would prove that the virus existed by early November 2019 and was infecting people in multiple locations.
I think this leads to the conclusion that these naysayers of my theory would have to say that 100-percent of these antibody tests were "false positives." ALL of them were "false positives." They can't say that ANY of them were "real Covid."
So what they are really saying is that every antibody test that came back positive was bogus. The tests were awful and should all be discredited. Thinking about this, I wonder why the CDC even did that one "Red Cross" antibody study if study authors are going to come back and simply say, "Ignore this study. It's bunk. We don't believe our own results."
I keep making this point: If just one or two people really had Covid in November 2019 or earlier, this virus WAS spreading. But I don't think all 153 antibody results were bogus. I actually think it's more likely these antibody tests produce(d) "false negatives" than "false positives."
As I understand it, the virus traveled from China to Italy first. From Italy to other European countries. And then quickly to the US. Thousands of people arrive daily in the US from all over the world. Especially in Dec. as people often take a holiday around that time and if they can afford it, they travel abroad. The US is 2nd in the world as a vacation destination.
In my articles, I've now identified at least 153 "antibody-confirmed" cases of "early" Covid. All - or the vast majority - of these cases would have occurred in November 2019 or even earlier.
The counter-argument to my journalism is that these antibody results must have been producing "false positives" (probably from "cross-reactivity" to other viruses).
Okay, for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that 90 percent of the people who tested positive for antibodies actually didn't have Covid. Ninety percent of these test results were "false positives."
Okay, what about the other 10 percent?
This would leave us with at least 15 people around the world (10 percent of 153) who DID have legitimate positive antibody results that were Covid cases. (This would actually be 30 people as we don't know the identify of the 15 unknown virus-transmitters who infected the 15 people who later tested positive).
Question: How do the experts explain these 30 cases? If they all had Covid, the virus was "spreading" and didn't originate in Wuhan in November 2019 (as these people had not been to Wuhan or been infected by anyone who had been to Wuhan).
So, really, this knowledge/conclusion would prove that the virus existed by early November 2019 and was infecting people in multiple locations.
I think this leads to the conclusion that these naysayers of my theory would have to say that 100-percent of these antibody tests were "false positives." ALL of them were "false positives." They can't say that ANY of them were "real Covid."
So what they are really saying is that every antibody test that came back positive was bogus. The tests were awful and should all be discredited. Thinking about this, I wonder why the CDC even did that one "Red Cross" antibody study if study authors are going to come back and simply say, "Ignore this study. It's bunk. We don't believe our own results."
I keep making this point: If just one or two people really had Covid in November 2019 or earlier, this virus WAS spreading. But I don't think all 153 antibody results were bogus. I actually think it's more likely these antibody tests produce(d) "false negatives" than "false positives."
As I understand it, the virus traveled from China to Italy first. From Italy to other European countries. And then quickly to the US. Thousands of people arrive daily in the US from all over the world. Especially in Dec. as people often take a holiday around that time and if they can afford it, they travel abroad. The US is 2nd in the world as a vacation destination.