Image 01 Image 03

Connecticut pathologist’s study shows CDC coronavirus test kits generate 30% false positive results

Connecticut pathologist’s study shows CDC coronavirus test kits generate 30% false positive results

Other issues with the COVID-count include motorcycle fatality classified as COVID-19 death, Rhode Island reporting 113 false positive results, and Florida labs lacking negative COVID-19 results.

As the American press paints a dire picture of all the new cases of coronavirus out there, to inspire another economy-crushing set of closures, it would be wise to step back and start questioning the numbers.

Evidence suggests there may be substantially fewer new cases of COVID-19 than those being reported. To begin with, there appear to be many cases of “presumed positive.”
Additionally, there are clear cases of deemed-positive, despite contraindications the cause of illness or death is related entirely to another factor.

Florida’s coronavirus death count includes at least one young man who died in a motorcycle accident, according to a local health official.

After several reports that health organizations in Florida were misreporting data, Danielle Lama of Fox 35 Orlando spoke with Orange County Health Officer Dr. Raul Pino about several specific cases.

Lama asked Pino whether two younger people listed as COVID-19 deaths, both in their twenties, had suffered from any underlying conditions.

“The first one didn’t have any. He died in a motorcycle accident,” Pino replied.

When Lama followed up, asking whether his data had been removed from the official tally since his cause of death was the motorcycle accident, Pino said that he couldn’t be sure.

Furthermore, there are now indications that there are false positive results being reported from testing laboratories.

In fact, a study product by a Connecticut pathologist shows the CDC coronavirus test kits generate 30% false positive results and 20% that are false negatives.

The current CDC nucleic acid test kits for SARS-CoV-2 generate 30% false-positive and 20% false-negative results in the best state public health laboratory, Dr. Sin Hang Lee reported in a peer-reviewed article published in the International Journal of Geriatrics and Rehabilitation, an online journal based in Japan

Sin Hang Lee, MD, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, the author of the article (, re-tested 20 reference samples provided by the Connecticut State Department of Public Health Microbiology Laboratory Division to arrive at this conclusion, according to the published article. These reference samples were tested by the State Microbiology Laboratory with the CDC test kit and used as the standard reference to guide local laboratories to develop their own tests for SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens from suspected COVID-19 patients, according to the published article titled “Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in cellular components by routine nested RT-PCR followed by DNA sequencing.”

Dr. Lee is the first scientist developing a protocol to test the cellular components, instead of the cell-free fluid sample of a swab rinse, for SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA.

“The virus must grow and replicate in a living cell, and one infected cell may contribute thousands of copies of viral genome equivalents to be tested,” explained Dr. Lee.

The Rhode Island Department of Health just reported that the state had received 113 false-positive COVID-19 test results from a private laboratory.

These false-positive results were reported between July 9 and July 14, according to RIDOH.

RIDOH says the lab identified the issue with the accuracy and concluded that the initial sample handling in the lab produced the false positives with the batch.

RIDOH says 82 Rhode Islanders with positive results were included in that batch and received a positive result when retested.

The department says it will update the data webpage to reflect the true positive count.

Rhode Island isn’t the only state system reporting anomalous number, either.

The Florida Department of Health in its daily COVID-19 report lists multiple laboratories throughout the state – many of them small testing sites – with 100% positivity rates, but Southwest Florida’s dominant hospital system said Wednesday it is incorrect to say 100% of their labs are positive.

The Lee Health hospital system is reporting that its laboratory testing of potential COVID-19 cases has shown an overall positivity rate of about 18%, despite the state report showing that all people coming in for testing at some of its labs have the novel coronavirus.

While it seems a statistical improbability, the state’s reports have shown all-negative and all-positive test results from labs since it began releasing comprehensive daily coronavirus summaries in mid-March.

The Department of Health issued a statement to Florida media blaming the labs for incorrectly reporting data:

“In recent days, the Florida Department of Health noticed that some smaller, private labs weren’t reporting negative test result data to the state. The Department immediately began working with those labs to ensure that all results were being reported in order to provide comprehensive and transparent data.”

So, as the press uses the authority of “science” to promote pandemic panic, much of the data must be considered unreliable. Sensible policy makers and public health officials should act accordingly.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


My2centshere | July 19, 2020 at 4:07 pm

Thank you for this, I’m sending it out to my family members that are buying into the fraud.

Fauci The Clown will forever be the face of this scam.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | July 19, 2020 at 4:32 pm

And that’s before the corrupt Democrats manipulate them into an even higher percentage.

Would someone please explain to me why the “asymptomatic” cases aren’t actually false positives? I really don’t understand the distinction.

    PersonofInterests in reply to hopeful. | July 19, 2020 at 4:48 pm

    Not to worry; neither does Dr. “Fauxi.”

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to hopeful. | July 19, 2020 at 5:35 pm

    Supposedly, if you test positive, they give you another test for confirmation. The chances of 2 false positives are seen as minimizing the potential for true false positives. Obviously, this assumes a certain level of effectiveness for the test to begin with. For example, if the test has a 100% false positive rate, there will always be false confirmation. The protocol above was developed on an assumed 5% false positive rate, if I remember correctly. It would be interesting to see if (a) false positives for the tests are indeed in double digit rates, and (b) if labs are reporting all positives, to include initial and confirmatory tests and so reporting all false positives and true positive multiple times, or (c) not conducting confirmatory tests and lumping in all false positives with no negatives being reported, or (d) some combination or all of the above.

      Even with a double test, you’d still have an almost 10% false positive rate

        henrybowman in reply to Paul. | July 20, 2020 at 3:38 pm

        That’s not how the math works. If a test has a 5% false positive rate, taking the test again should reduce that to a 0.25% false positive rate.

      Considering all the false numbers that have been tossed into the mix, now I wonder if the re-test that follows on the initial positive test is counted twice into the total? Maybe not everywhere, but I wonder how prevalent it might be?

    DaveGinOly in reply to hopeful. | July 19, 2020 at 9:28 pm

    Testing is meant to identify two categories of people – those infected with a disease and those who are not.
    “Asymptomatic” people are those who have the disease but are not (or at least not yet) displaying any of the disease’s symptoms. So those people are “positive” for the disease. They are a subcategory of infected people. Being asymptomatic at the time of testing is no guarantee of remaining symptom-free.
    How important asymptomatic people are to the spread of the disease depends on how effectively (if at all) asymptomatic carriers are able to transmit the disease to others.
    Also, it’s important to know if asymptomatic people can still die from a potentially lethal disease. If yes, then asymptomatic people could be treated for the disease. If no, then treatments and treatment facilities can be conserved for symptomatic patients.
    Knowing what percentage of infected people are asymptomatic (and if they stay that way) is important to developing a response to a disease and to making predictions about its spread, the likelihood of actually suffering from it if infected, and future transmission of a disease if asymptomatic carriers are capable of same.
    Note this description is generic. I’ve tried to write it without regard to the current epidemic. For instance, there’s conflicting evidence concerning the transmission of COVID by asymptomatic carriers. Obviously, with any disease, if an asymptomatic carrier could transmit the disease, quarantine for such people might be considered depending on the efficiency of transmission.

      InEssence in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 19, 2020 at 11:41 pm

      The CDC traced 455 (I think) asymptomatic carriers of Covid. They found in every case that the asymptomatic person did not transmit the disease to anyone. I was unable to find the link on CDC’s site.

      Mac45 in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 20, 2020 at 1:52 am

      You fold really have to learn how these test work.

      In the first place the most common tests being used, the nasalpharyngial and the throat swab do not give results for infection. A positive result is only for exposure. And, in most cases, no serum follow-up test is ever given, not even a second np or throat test. The np test is supposed to be used when visible symptoms are present so that a likely viral agent can be determined for treatment purposes.

      Then we have this bogus asymptomatic infection BS. When the number of reported “cases”, based upon positive exposure tests far outstrips the number of symptomatic cases, some mechanism has to be found to justify labeling these exposure cases as infection. So, am asymptomatic label is thrown on them. And, surprise, almost none of these asymptomatic cases are infectious. Why not? Because they are not infections to begin with, only exposures.

      I have been telling you that the numbers of cases and deaths by COVID are hugely inflated. The whole extent of the COVID “crisis” is based upon lies for other purposes.

      Joe-dallas in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 20, 2020 at 7:12 am

      There is confusion regarding Asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic carriers

      Presymtomatic can and will transmit covid
      Asymptomatic are much less likely to transmitt covid, since the viral load is so much lower.

      Theorotically Asymptomatic carriers can spread covid but unlikely.

        Mac45 in reply to Joe-dallas. | July 20, 2020 at 10:26 am

        Or, there are really a very, very minuscule number of asymptomatic cases.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 21, 2020 at 12:09 am

          But if they then test positive for antibodies, then they must have been infected with the virus, no?

          I tested negative for the virus, and positive for the antibodies, and do not recall experiencing any of the symptoms that have been reported. So I assume that I was one of these asymptomatic cases.

      Edward in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 20, 2020 at 7:32 pm

      One of the flies in that ointment is that CDC has been lumping cases of people positive for active virus (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic) together with people who have shown they have antibodies indicating they have had the virus which is no longer active. GIGO is the technical data processing term.

This is interesting. I had seen another expert point out that the PCR test used for detecting Covid doesn’t detect actual infection, it detects virus fragments, both dead and alive. But the presence of dead virus fragments don’t prove illness – it shows that your immune system has won the fight against the virus, although the test registers as positive anyway.

Here’s the video of the top Swiss immunolgy expert saying just that.

    DaveGinOly in reply to billdyszel. | July 19, 2020 at 9:36 pm

    As long as the formerly infected person has actually acquired immunity from the infectious agent, that person is no longer either a potential transmitter of the disease nor a potential future hospital patient. If it is determined that a formerly infected person can be re-infected, modelers will know that the presence of such people in a population will have to be considered differently than if they could not be re-infected.
    Also, these people were infected, so knowing about them is important to the understanding of how a disease moves through a population, because at least at one time they were part of the chain of transmission, even if there is no threat to their health or a possibility of being in need of medical resources in the future.

    nordic_prince in reply to billdyszel. | July 19, 2020 at 10:25 pm

    Not only does the PCR not test for actual infection (in fact, its creator said it was NOT to be used for diagnostics), there are other conditions which can result in a positive test. The way I understand it, the PCR test actually tests for genetic debris (exosomes) that is “left over” not only from Covid 19 but other diseases as well (e.g. cancer).

I wonder if Brenda Snipes is behind the counting?

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

“…much of the data must be considered unreliable.”

I respectfully disagree. If the data is contaminated in any way, it is unreliable. Period.

The default is to not trust data unless you know it is reliable. Maybe or partially does not work.

    DaveGinOly in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 19, 2020 at 9:45 pm

    Perfect data in an epidemic is never available, even after the epidemic. Only perfect data can assure a perfect response.

    However, it’s important that as data is evaluated over time that the response to the data is likewise re-evaluated. This is where many governors are getting it wrong, by misinterpreting data (an increase in the number of positive tests does not necessarily mean more infections if the number of tests is increasing – when normalized for testing, the rate of infection remains nearly level), whether willfully or mistakenly.

      MajorWood in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 20, 2020 at 1:37 am

      They like to use real numbers because they are big and scary. They hate the fact that numbers expressed as a function of something else are not scary. Oregon has 257 Covid deaths: scary. In the same time period, 18,000 Oregonians died, so Covid is at most 1.5% of the deaths, and ranks around #12 as cause of death on an annual basis (which will probably fall to about #15 by next March. 1.5%, not very scary, not really a reason to extend and expand the shutdown. 257, really scary, we are all going to DIE!

      Edward in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 20, 2020 at 7:37 pm

      “…misinterpreting the data…”? Bwahahahahahahahahaha

      Making a decision which will clearly harm the state/country in order to further a political goal isn’t misinterpreting.

Counting twice, thrice, and conflation of causes.

2smartforlibs | July 19, 2020 at 5:42 pm

I guess you couple that with the other 70% just to generate cash for the hospital you get Fl 100%.

Been watching Covid-19 numbers since the beginning of the apocalypse.See lots of reasons not to believe them.

My pet peeve is the category of “probable” cases – essentially, people who have been exposed but haven’t been tested. The number never drops, which it would do if these people were actually being tested and found positive or not. In effect, it’s just a fudge factor to inflate the numbers.

    TX-rifraph in reply to txvet2. | July 19, 2020 at 6:46 pm

    Leftists have a special definition for “probable” that is unrelated to math.

    Something is “probable” if it is possible.
    Something is “possible” if it is conceivable in any way that does not have to be based on engineering, science, math, or any other discipline.

    And, if it “probable,” it is to be treated as a certainty if it supports the narrative in any way.

    Probable does not mean probable. Just listen to a leftist sometime.

      Paul in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 19, 2020 at 6:54 pm

      And if it’s “probably” in a prog’s mind, then clearly the government must “DO SOMETHING!”

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 20, 2020 at 7:08 am

      This all harkens back to Barky’s revolutionary new statistic:

      “Jobs created or saved”

      Gotta love leftists and their make-believe reasoning. I just wish governmental policy wasn’t based on their delusional rantings. In this Wuhan virus case we have actually incinerated about $6 TRILLION in “fighting” this new black death like we were the communist chinese and had no concept of individual liberty or private property rights or any notion of a Constitution … $6 TRILLION … just thrown right into the fire. You have to be pretty damn rich to be able to do something like that.

The false positive and the false negative rates can be anything you want, but the choice of one determines the other.

You can get zero false positives by always returning a negative result, for example; or 2% false positives by nearly always returning a negative result.

If they’re getting 30% false positives, that means they designed to have a low false negative rate, probably. And accepting the false positive rate they get for it.

Lucifer Morningstar | July 19, 2020 at 7:03 pm

. . . much of the data must be considered unreliable.

Just much of the data? I’d say at this point none of the data can be considered reliable.

Just my 2 cents.

Well they have to SOMEHOW account for everyone who got it, showed no symptoms and never got tested and never knew.

…then we also have the hyperdrive fearmongers waging war on potential future damage caused by a virus people got, didn’t know they had, and recovered from— because “we’ve never seen this virus before and it could be like TWD!!!!”

Just heard same report from neighbor who is dental hygienist. Friend went to get tested, got tired of long wait, left, got called that they were positive — NC. “What? No way … we were never tested.”

    snopercod in reply to JAL. | July 20, 2020 at 7:39 am

    There’s a logical explanation for that. Their employer required a negative test in order to return to work. These two got tired of waiting in line and just walked off without taking the test. The lab didn’t actually give them a positive result, it just couldn’t confirm that they were negative. That’s my theory, anyway.

I was informed by a local doc that the increase in Covid hospitalizations is being driven by people who are finally going in for elective procedures. They are tested for Covid as a routine when checking in, and if positive are admitted as a Covid case, not for the elective procedure, even if completely asymptomatic.

Around Portland people are acting more bats&#t crazy than before. I pop my mask off the picosecond I am not in a situation that requires it, and am both amused and disturbed by the number of people who are over 30 ft away outdoors that feel compelled to don their mask as I pass by. Seriously, I am starting to think that wearing a mask causes mental illness. Calling this dem-panic a really long Twilight Zone episode several months back may not have been giving it enough credit. As a buddy used to put it, there are those who suffer from from mental illness, and those who seem to enjoy it, quite a lot.

As this health threat goes on, we are going to see more and more evidence that it largely a hoax. All the stats are padded to make it look much more dangerous than it is. Of course, in the meantime, it will have destroyed our economy, the economy of the Western World, bankrupt he US government, as well as steal the 2020 Presidential election. But, that’s alright. Just keep wearing your mask and sitting at home as you have no job. I’m sure it will all work out alright.

    Andy in reply to Mac45. | July 20, 2020 at 12:02 pm

    The virus is the virus, there’s enough data and information to tell us who should be scared and how scared they should be.

    Here’s my litmus test:

    1- You are going to contract genital herpes
    2- You are going to catch COVID 19.

    In this test- getting either means you will never get the other.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | July 20, 2020 at 2:42 am

Google Will Ban Ads On Sites Publishing “Debunked” Coronavirus Theories

Have we not learned that you always get more of what you subsidize? The CARES Act gave hospitals a 20% Bonus for all COVID cases, and gave Long Term Care Hospitals a major bonus for accepting COVID patients from normal hospitals. This may explain why Cuomo sent all those oldsters to their deaths: For the money.

buckeyeminuteman | July 20, 2020 at 8:03 am

When the Regressive left said they would oppose Trump “by any means necessary”, this is exactly what they meant. Scorched earth, burn the economy and the country down. To hell with everything if it means getting Trump voted out.

Mr. Jacobsen — love your blog, but should you really be featuring tweets from known fabulists like “Emerald Robinson”? She has a confirmed history of making things up out of whole cloth.

    henrybowman in reply to mckyj57. | July 20, 2020 at 3:43 pm

    I have to say, the whole “my relative left the queue and then got reported as positive” tale pegs my somewhat educated urban legend detector.

The US has reported coronavirus 3,773,260 cases.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said on Saturday that 25 million Iranians have been infected with the coronavirus and that another 35 million are at risk of acquiring it.

Figures don’t lie but liars figure.

If Joe Biden wins the Presidency, this whole thing will magically disappear.

    markymark in reply to ss396. | July 20, 2020 at 11:13 am


      henrybowman in reply to markymark. | July 20, 2020 at 3:41 pm

      Nope. COVID will immediately “Epstein” Old Joe, whereupon the DNC will have the president it wanted all along. But no spoilers!

    CateDean in reply to ss396. | July 20, 2020 at 1:16 pm

    ss396—- My thoughts exactly. The fact that they’re amplifying these PCR tests to 100x… more than the recommended amount <45x, means just about everyone that takes the test will be positive.
    But, when Joe is Pres, they will downgrade the test to the reco-amplification and a MIRACLE!!! It all goes away or at least less people will be truly positive.

    Hey, another thing… has anyone ventured to the Pharma sites to check out the Docs on the tests (PCR)? Get ready … I'm just copying and paste from 2 of the test brands that are currently being used. So :

    Accula : SARS-CoV-2 Test results are for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA is generally detectable in nasal swab specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.

    • This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other viral or bacterial agents.

    Abbott : ID NOW COVID-19
    Results are for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The SARS-CoV-2RNA is generally detectable in respiratory samples during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.

    -The test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

henrybowman | July 20, 2020 at 3:39 pm

“Rhode Island reporting 113 false positive results”

At least the other 19 residents are certified healthy. (Block Island, amirite?)