The Falling Of The House Of Cards: 2. The indication to test is wrong.

The house of corona cards was built on nothing but myths.

These are the 10 major defragmented contextualised facts.

Full talk:
https://rumble.com/vvj9ft-the-falling-of-the-house-of-cards.html

2. The indication to test is wrong. Testing is appropriate only with critically ill, hospitalised patients in need of specific antiviral therapy, within a surveillance system for respiratory infections and in an epidemiological study cohort, and it may not be arbitrarily limited to a single virus, but must take into account all respiratory viruses that may cause respiratory infections.

Usually, disease caused by respiratory viruses is self-limiting. Before 2020, when we had a cold or a flu, we voluntarily stayed at home, treated the symptoms ourselves, and waited for our immune system to resolve the problem. Usually, this happened within seven days. If we got worse, we consulted our GP. He or she might then have diagnosed a complicating secondary bacterial pneumonia, which could be treated with an antibiotic on an outpatient basis, and lasted from two to three weeks. The GP only referred the most severe cases to the hospital.

Only at this stage were microbiological tests performed, because the identification of the causative pathogen has therapeutic consequences only in severely sick patients where specific treatment is indicated. And, again, these diagnostic tests did not look for only a single virus, as is now being done with COVID, but instead took account of all potentially responsible viruses, bacteria or fungi.

At this point, it is worth noting that PCR, if properly conducted, may indeed be helpful for rapid diagnosis in an acute respiratory infection. However, a positive PCR test result does not prove an infection and must always be assessed in conjunction with the patient's medical history, as well as clinical and other diagnostic findings. On the other hand, for monitoring the spread of an epidemic or a pandemic, PCR tests are utterly pointless. There, tests for antibodies and T cell immunity are the first choice.

Yet, when I studied medicine in Switzerland, in the second year, every medical student had to study basic epidemiology. There, we learned that in the event of an epidemic of national scope, a study cohort representative of the population must be formed immediately. Its purpose is to monitor the prevalence, incidence, and severity of the disease and the status of immunity. Had this been done with COVID also, we should have realised already in April 2020 that there was no epidemic of national scope and that there was exactly zero scientific support for painful and costly nonsensical interventions, for the enactment of epidemic laws, for the drafting of COVID laws, for digital COVID certificates and for unethical mandatory experimental injections.

Even though we are now 23 months into the WHO-declared COVID pandemic, such a representative epidemiological surveillance cohort does not exist in any country. Does seriously no one amongst the governments, the health authorities and their advisors have the knowledge of a second-year medical student?

In Switzerland it was even worse. For more than half of 2020 the Federal Office of Public Health had also paused the surveillance system of viral respiratory infections, which is based on representative medical practices, that report all consultations due to acute respiratory infections and send in swabs for microbiological testing. Thus, proper epidemiology was cast aside entirely, and public health and policy decisions were left at the mercy of charlatans who conjured up countless so-called `cases’ with their fatally flawed and useless PCR test ‘case numbers.