Covid positives in 2018: the finding the official story can't explain

Elbichito positives in 2018: the finding the official story can't explain

In May 2018, five out of fifty pregnant British women tested IgG-positive for SARS-CoV-2. A year and a half before the bicho supposedly appeared in Wuhan. The data was published in the British Medical Journal and picked up by Science. This is not a leak: it is peer-reviewed literature which, read today, raises an uncomfortable question. How can anyone have immunity to a bicho that doesn't exist yet?

The official answer came with a term that explains everything and nothing: cross-reactivity. Between 5% and 10% of the population would supposedly have antibodies that react non-specifically. Curiously, that same 5-10% is exactly what the 2020 seroprevalence surveys produced. The coincidence is so perfect that it invites the thought that the test doesn't measure what they say it measures.

The 10% of positives the WHO didn't want to repeat

The 2018 finding is not an isolated case. In September 2019, months before the Italian outbreak, a study found 14% seropositive samples in that country. Far from questioning the timeline, the authors hypothesized that the bicho had circulated in a «less symptomatic» form. It's the classic Ptolemaic epicycle: when the data contradicts the theory, a new layer is invented to save it.

PCR, presented as the gold standard, doesn't come out well either. Some claim that a quarter of the general population would show HIV viral load if given a PCR test for the AIDS bicho. The same peine with SARS-CoV-2: the test detects genetic material, not disease. And if the test comes back positive on samples from before 2019, the whole castle starts to wobble.

The HIV precedent: diagnosing without a test

The parallel with HIV is inevitable. The test dates from 1985. Before that date, all AIDS diagnoses were made without any test. Today it is said that diagnosing without a test is impossible. So how did they know the earlier cases were AIDS? The answer is that they didn't: they applied a clinical definition that included opportunistic infections, and any pneumocystis pneumonia counted. AIDS was defined by symptoms, not by a bicho.

Something similar happens with SARS-CoV-2. The source supposedly proving causality refers to a brief report with four samples. Four. The bicho's pathogenesis rests on a basis so fragile it's laughable. And meanwhile, the PCR machinery keeps returning positives on samples that should be negative.

The question nobody wants to ask: what if the test is the problem?

If the seroprevalence surveys were repeated today with the same tests used in 2020, they would still return 5-10% positives. That would call into question the efficacy of the vaccines and the very notion of immunity. That's why they aren't repeated. And if anyone tested pre-2019 samples with the current tests, they would find impossible positives. The conclusion is uncomfortable: the test cannot distinguish between a bicho that didn't exist and one that does.

History repeats itself. HIV was detected in samples from the 1950s, when it was supposed to be a new bicho. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 2018, when it was supposed to be novel. The frauds repeat themselves because the method is the same: define the disease by a test, and then use the test to prove the disease. A perfect circle.

---

Editor's note: This article is based on the sources cited in the original material. The claims about cross-reactivity and the timeline are those found in the referenced studies. The interpretation that the test is the problem is a hypothesis put forward by some analysts, not an established fact.