Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> test results where in general correctish

They diluted the blood. They couldn't possibly be correct.



sort by: page size:

> The issue was the way they treated here AFTER the two known-to-be-spurious tests

You mean by sending away for a more accurate test which cleared things up?


> Blood testing is not a field where people accept mistakes.

I don't think this is true. There are blood tests that don't always work. Lyme disease is one that is not accurately detected.


> To avoid any false positive result we have taken all the usual precautions and we also confirmed it by two different, techniques and staff.

Sure? No. But taking their statement at face value, it does seem unlikely.


> Still waiting to get further follow up tests,

I hope all will turn out good for you, and wishing you the best of luck.

> they came back saying there were proteins present.

I think probably there is a bit of a Chinese whisper kind of misunderstanding here. Your blood will contain proteins. It must. Everyone's blood does. For example hemoglobin is a type of protein which makes your red blood cells able to carry oxygen.

What they probably told you is that they found the wrong quantity or the wrong kind of proteins.

Wishing you the best!


> When I signed up the sample they took was spit in a vial.

Yes, and? I don't see the significance of the testing medium here. DNA sequencing from hair or blood or saliva will yield identical results.


> turned out to be based on false positives.

I believed it was based on false negatives in previous PCR tests?

It's also a question of understanding what the test actually means. The test doesn't (and can't) claim "this patient is cured" but only "when analyzing this specific sample taken from this patient, no significant trace of virus could be confirmed."


> more than 80k confirmed cases world wide, and two with a secondary infection.

We should talk about the test error intervals.

With that small amount of secondary cases, maybe it was a false positive the first time. No procedure is 100% failsafe and this is a price that we pay for being in the real world. Maybe the test was not applied correctly, was not stored accurately or was triggered by some artifact.


> They are not good enough for a rumored „immune certification“.

And how about being tested negative, and a few weeks later being tested positive? I suppose that would improve the accuracy.


> He was unable to get an antibody test after his first infection

It is entirely possible the first infection was a false positive.


> I haven’t had my B6 levels tested in the last few days because it’s in the last few days

I was asking if you had your B6 levels tested ever, not in the last few days.

You’re reading what I wrote much more dramatically than it is implied. The fact you think I am really telling you to run out right now and get your B6 tested is distorted.


> If you do get a positive reading, I would suggest having someone else try with the same kind of test with their feces to be sure it isn’t a false positive. Weird shit happens.

well played.


> Did they sue the hospital for not knowing enough about medicine that her inhaler could cause this

murica!!

You know what else causes a positive test? Using meth. They got a positive, they followed up with further testing to clarify.


> apparently deliberate suppression of information

There's an alternative explanation: that the CDC massively dropped the ball on making enough test kits available.

The CDC comes off looking pretty bad regardless of whether it's deceit or incompetence, but they're pretty different things.

Hanlon's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) would tell us which to prefer, although it's not always right.


> I also wonder about whether getting people to have a fraudulent medical test (which might cause some amount of pain or anxiety, especially for people who are afraid of needles) could have been a cognizable harm

If I remember right one of the witnesses was a woman who got a false-positive HIV test result, so they probably went for that angle.


> not measuring his blood

I thought he was getting weekly blood tests?


> No tests

yikes, that's hard to justify.


> Also, this fails to explain the _disinfectant_.

Not only are there hundreds of doctors in the US who inject disinfectant into people to treat viruses already, there are medical textbooks about it and even an academy for certifying medical practitioners:

https://aaot.us/?

(Technically they advocate taking blood from people, infusing it with disinfectant, and then injecting the infused blood back into people, but close enough.)

I don't know to what extent it's safe or effective, but hundreds of thousands of people have done it without dying at this point and many of them credit it for having healed various problems, so that's something.


> and it was bad enough that the testing company lost their contract (whether they were fudging numbers or not is debatable, I can't find any good information on it either)

Ah yea. That happened in California and Florida for sure, probably other places too. In Florida there were two labs specially that were reporting 100% positive for weeks, I don’t care how badly they had it, that wasn’t actually possible.

You probably had it, my personal experience was I got it early and aside from two days of flu symptoms it was gone. Didn’t know until I gave blood months later and had positive antibodies.


> Not having a test is better than having a flaky test.

What i'm saying is that you are completely wrong about that. Sorry if i wasn't clear.

next

Legal | privacy