They speculate/proclaim that the tests are picking up cousins of the novel coronavirus. So someone who tests positive is "cross-reactive." It was another virus that made them sick. That's the other thing they don't talk about. These people not only tested positive for Covid antibodies, they also had all the Covid symptoms months before their tests. And they hadn't been sick after that. They also disparage antibody results that are producing high numbers of positives as being "junk" tests - not reliable. Personally, I trust the "junk" tests more than the tests the government uses and authorizes. I saw you just subscribed. You can read my stories on "How they Conceal Early Spread" and "Antibody Evidence of Early Spread in One Document." I'd value you your opinions. Is my evidence more credible than that of the experts? Thanks for the subscription!
Thank you for this information Bill - I sent your substack sub info to my husband, a virologist of many yrs who worked in Public Health for state of PA. He will read over your 2 articles and the explanations you posted about evidence of of test results. He's a better person to look over the science than I am. I'm not a scientist, I'm a researcher and help him with his research is all. He can answer any questions you might have. He will probably answer them on your substack column. Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else.
"The naysayers of my early spread hypothesis say that all the early positives on antibody tests were "false positives."
Do they have evidence of that? Can they explain how or why the false positives occur?
They speculate/proclaim that the tests are picking up cousins of the novel coronavirus. So someone who tests positive is "cross-reactive." It was another virus that made them sick. That's the other thing they don't talk about. These people not only tested positive for Covid antibodies, they also had all the Covid symptoms months before their tests. And they hadn't been sick after that. They also disparage antibody results that are producing high numbers of positives as being "junk" tests - not reliable. Personally, I trust the "junk" tests more than the tests the government uses and authorizes. I saw you just subscribed. You can read my stories on "How they Conceal Early Spread" and "Antibody Evidence of Early Spread in One Document." I'd value you your opinions. Is my evidence more credible than that of the experts? Thanks for the subscription!
Thank you for this information Bill - I sent your substack sub info to my husband, a virologist of many yrs who worked in Public Health for state of PA. He will read over your 2 articles and the explanations you posted about evidence of of test results. He's a better person to look over the science than I am. I'm not a scientist, I'm a researcher and help him with his research is all. He can answer any questions you might have. He will probably answer them on your substack column. Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else.
Thank you very much. What a great resource - a researcher and a virologist.
Thank you! I'm happy to help a "struggling journalist" especially one who seems to want so badly to get to the truth.
I'm working so hard so that I might reach readers just like you and your husband!