Differential Diagnosis?
“It’s probably viral and it just needs to run its course.” 🤷♂️
differential diagnosis
: the distinguishing of a disease or condition from others presenting with similar signs and symptoms
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/differential%20diagnosis
I imagine most of us have “fond” memories of going to the doctor when feeling unwell and getting subsequently poked and prodded in order to determine a “cause” for the illness. Beyond checking for a fever with a thermometer, the examination performed usually involved a listen to the lungs and heart with the stethoscope, the use of a thick wooden popsicle stick pressed to the tongue to examine the throat, a look into the nose and ears with the otoscope, and a feel of the glands around the neck to check for inflammation and swelling. Unless a strep test (which consisted of a long q-tip being swirled in the back of the throat) was called for and came back positive, more often than not, we were sent home without any testing or medications with the sage advice that “it’s only a viral infection and it just needs to run its course.” Essentially, the only purpose of the examination was to get the written doctors note for school the next day. We were left with the warm and fuzzy feeling that the doctor had absolutely no idea what was going on and the best cure was Grandma's timeless remedy: bed rest, chicken noodle soup, and ginger ale.
A 2015 article reprinted in The Washington Post by Chad Hayes, a resident physician in pediatrics in Greenville, S.C., discussed this very common scenario. In his article, Hayes admitted that in most cases, testing is not performed as there are no differences in the treatments given for any of the resulting symptoms assumed to be caused by different “viruses.” As they do not want the patient to feel like they wasted their time, doctors offer complex sounding medical terms to the patient which essentially all mean the same thing: it's just the common cold and the doctor has nothing else to offer:
Your kid is really sick, but the doctor says it’s ‘just a virus’
“Of course, when your pediatrician diagnoses your child with “just a virus,” he’s implying that it’s one of those that doesn’t typically cause much harm. There are thousands of viruses out there that can cause cold symptoms, and we don’t tend to test for them. It would be ridiculously expensive, it wouldn’t change what we do and you probably wouldn’t get the test result until the symptoms had gone away.
“Just a virus” is also implying that it’s a problem he can’t do much about. In contrast to bacterial infections, which are typically treated with antibiotics, most viral infections are stomped out by your immune system in a few days. Antibiotics don’t do a thing to treat viruses.”
“If you do take your child to the doctor for a virus of the “just a” variety, she may be diagnosed with a “viral syndrome,” “upper respiratory infection” or “acute viral rhinitis.” These are doctor terms for “a cold.” (When you go to the trouble of bringing your child in, we don’t want to seem like we are downplaying your concerns, so we use a complicated medical term instead of “a cold.”)
After making this diagnosis, the doctor will probably provide reassurance and recommend “symptomatic care.” This means fluids, rest, humidifiers — things you were probably doing already. I promise, it’s not that we don’t understand how miserable “just a” viruses can be. Trust me, we’ve all picked up more than our share from snotty little kids (including our own). It’s also not that we don’t care. It’s just that we have nothing else to offer.
But don’t worry. It’s just a virus. He’ll be fine.”
Why is it that physicians can not provide anything more concrete when examining symptoms rather than the slogan “it's just a virus and it will run its course?” It's because they can not clinically diagnose any disease based on symptoms alone as the different conditions said to be caused by distinct “viruses” all share many similar and overlapping presentations. Try as they might, it is impossible to distinguish and definitively diagnose someone clinically with a specific “virus.” Hence the need to offer complex sounding medical terms to cover up the ineptitude.
Knowing that clinicians can not differentiate and diagnose between disease processes based on symptoms alone, an article published in Science-Based Medicine discussing the possibility that an uptick in “Covid” cases in 2021 was possibly due to a misdiagnosis of “Covid” with RSV immediately caught my attention. As we are currently said to be in the midst of a “Tripledemic” involving RSV, influenza and "SARS-COV-2,” I figured it would make for an interesting read, especially as it is well known that clinical diagnosis of “Covid-19,” influenza, and RSV is impossible, hence the need for molecular tests such as PCR. This was pointed out in July 2021 by Dr. Gregory Poland, an infectious diseases physician and researcher at Mayo Clinic, who stated: "You cannot distinguish them just by clinical symptoms, unless you had the loss of taste and smell, which would push you toward saying, 'Well, this is likely to be COVID.' The only thing you can do is the swab nasal test to distinguish the infection." Apparently, Dr. Poland is one of the few who still believe anosmia is specific to “SARS-COV-2” when it is anything but specific or unique:
“Although a loss of taste and smell is often considered to be a symptom unique to Covid-19, other viruses, including those that cause the common cold and flu, can affect someone's sense of taste and smell.”
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2022/11/01/virus-comparison
Forgiving his faux pas on anosmia, we can see from Dr. Poland that it is impossible to distinguish between “Covid-19,” RSV, and other respiratory infections based on clinical symptoms alone. The only possibility he allows for in order to distinguish them is by way of fraudulent molecular testing. However, in the Science-Based Medicine article, Dr. Tracey Beth Høeg questioned whether these molecular tests were actually accurate enough to distinguish between “Covid” and RSV or if they were generating incidental false-positives. This tweet by Dr. Høeg, which was suspiciously absent from the article, clarifies her point:
“SARS-COV-2” was being preferentially tested for in the hospital setting at the time while kids were being seen for reasons not attributed to “Covid.” This led Dr. Høeg to believe that an uptick in “Covid” hospitalizations in 0-4 year olds may have been RSV cases instead as this “virus” is said to be more severe than “SARS-COV-2” within that age group. Physicians on social media became furious with Høeg and balked at the idea that they could not distinguish between RSV and “Covid.” The SBM article linked to the below tweet as proof that doctors could confidently distinguish between the two “viruses” based on symptoms alone:
Throughout the article, further tweets from MD's were presented in support of the little girl waving her finger. Dr. David Levine claimed that “they are completely different diseases and that there's a test” for them, meaning his criteria for a differential diagnosis is molecular tests, not clinical diagnosis. Dr. Rebekah Diamond MD. tweeted that we have PCR testing to differentiate the “viruses” and then made the false claim that “the diagnosis of has always been clear even before the pcr results.” As “Covid” has never been diagnosed clinically without PCR and there is no way to distinguish RSV from other respiratory infections based on the overlapping symptoms, this seems like a pretty odd thing to claim without corroborating evidence but this is par for the course. The article rightfully pointed out that, in order for a misdiagnosis to occur, pediatricians (who can not diagnose clinically) and labs (which can not get accurate results with fraudulent tests) throughout the country must be abysmally incompetent:
Is RSV Being Misdiagnosed as COVID-19?
“Faced with these numbers, a suggestion emerged that perhaps COVID-19 really isn’t that bad, as children are being overdiagnosed with the virus. I first encountered this idea from Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, a sports medicine doctor with a PhD in Epidemiology and Public Health. Dr. Høeg wondered on Twitter if the increases in COVID-19 diagnoses were perhaps due to misdiagnosis of RSV:
The observation that prompted Dr. Høeg’s query was, “the 0-4 year olds driving up COVID hospitalization rates recently. 5-17 year olds have decreased/remained stable.” As she explained, a hospitalization due to RSV could be mis-labelled COVID-19 if they have a positive COVID test:
“Pediatricians on social media were justifiably furious at the suggestion that they could not distinguish between these two viruses:
Pediatricians were very confident they could tell the viruses apart on clinical ground alone, in addition to the separate tests that exist for these diseases. RSV is diagnosed with a rapid antigen or PCR test, which is more likely to be used in the hospital setting. COVID-19 is, of course, diagnosed with a PCR test, and false positive tests are extremely rare.
For a child to be mistakenly diagnosed with COVID-19 when they actually have RSV, it would have to mean that their pediatrician is unable to distinguish these diseases clinically, the COVID-19 test would have to be a false positive, and the RSV test would have be to a false negative. Basically, as noted by Dr. Rebekah Diamond, the only way large numbers of children with RSV could be misdiagnosed with COVID-19 is if pediatricians and labs throughout the country were abysmally incompetent:”
Notably, the doctors who now question whether COVID-19 is being misdiagnosed as RSV only consider that COVID-19 is being overdiagnosed, not the reverse. Early this summer when COVID-19 rates were falling and RSV rates were increasing, these doctors didn’t wonder whether COVID-19 was being misdiagnosed as RSV. This is quite revealing.”
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-rsv-being-misdiagnosed-as-covid-19/
While Dr. Høeg was asking relevant questions that anyone should ask, just like the physicians who were out for her blood, she was mistaken in a very important way. In order to misdiagnose “viruses,” the “viruses” in question must be proven to exist first by adherence to the scientific method. This requires a valid independent variable (i.e. purifed/isolated particles to experiment with). However, not a single one of the “viruses” in question have ever been properly purified and isolated directly from the fluids of a sick patient and then proven to cause the symptoms of disease that they are associated with in a natural way. As there are no “viruses,” there is no need to differentiate between diseases based upon fictional “viruses” as the symptoms are all varying stages of the same detoxification process.
Physicians attempt to differentiate between fictional “viruses” and diseases based upon miniscule variations in symptomology but, as you will see, this is admitted to be impossible as there are no new, specific, nor unique symptoms. Thus, all of the diagnoses attempting to differentiate conditions based on symptoms caused by a specific“virus” are mis-diagnoses.
To highlight this fact, it was known early on in this “pandemic,” as shown in a study published late February 2020, that there was no way to clinically diagnose “SARS-COV-2” and differentiate it with other diseases. The authors stated that this was due to the fact that those testing positive had symptoms ranging from being entirely absent of illness to being severely ill with pneumonia and dying. The nonspecific symptoms which were associated with “Covid-19” were also seen in many respiratory infections said to be caused by other “viruses” and bacteria. Thus, the only way to attempt to claim “SARS-COV-2” as the causative agent in order to obtain a differential diagnosis was by way of PCR testing:
Differential diagnosis of illness in patients under investigation for the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), Italy, February 2020
“The spectrum of this disease in humans, now named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [5], is yet to be fully determined. For confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, reported illnesses have ranged from people with little to no symptoms to people being severely ill, having pneumonia and dying [6]. Multiple body tracts may be involved, including the respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal and neurologic tracts. However, more common symptoms are fever (83–98%), cough (76–82%) and shortness of breath (31–55%) [6,7]. These nonspecific symptoms are shared by many other frequent infectious diseases of the respiratory tract caused by bacteria and viruses, most of which are self-limiting but may also progress to severe conditions [8,9]. Among these, the most relevant is influenza, usually characterised by fever, myalgia, headache and non-productive cough, that may also cause complications with high morbidity and mortality rate, such as pneumonia, myocarditis, central nervous system disease and death [10,11]. In addition, other previously known human coronaviruses cause similar, although milder clinical signs, including the alphacoronaviruses 229E and NL63, and the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1, while two other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, cause severe respiratory syndrome in humans [12].”
Diagnostic algorithm
“The diagnostic algorithm adopted by the Laboratory for SARS-CoV-2 testing included, immediately upon sample receipt, a rapid molecular test for the most common respiratory pathogens in order to obtain a fast differential diagnosis. SARS-CoV-2 testing was based on the protocol released by the World Health Organization (WHO) [13], and three positive patients have been identified at the time of writing this paper.”
Discussion
“Our results highlight the importance of differential diagnosis in travellers arriving from countries with widespread occurrence of COVID-19, considering the similarity of symptoms shared with more common respiratory infections, such as influenza and other respiratory tract diseases.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7055037/
We can see that clinical diagnosis based on symptoms alone is impossible. The only way to differentiate between “viruses” is by the reliance on fraudulent PCR to differentially diagnose “Covid” from other diseases. However, this creates another problem which I have spoken about many times before. In order for the results of the PCR test to be considered accurate, disease prevalence must be known. As defined by the CDC, prevalence is “the proportion of persons in a population who have a particular disease or attribute at a specified point in time or over a specified period of time.” This is how the CDC calculates disease prevalence:
In order to determine prevalence, cases must be known and must come from diagnosis based on clinical symptoms alone. However, as we have discussed, the symptoms are identical between “Covid-19” and many other diseases meaning there is no way to diagnose a patient clinically in order to differentiate cases and thus there is no way to determine disease prevalence. Without knowing disease prevalence, there is no way to determine whether or not any of the test results are being interpreted accurately. This means that all diagnoses, whether clinical or molecular, are false as there is no way to accurately differentiate between “viruses” and the symptoms they are said to cause. For more on the prevalence problem, please see this article.
To further highlight the inability to distinguish between “viruses” clinically in order to determine cases so that disease prevalence can be established, a September 2021 study attempting to create a differential diagnosis between “Covid” and other diseases stated that “Covid” can not be differentiated from other respiratory infections via clinical signs, symptoms, or laboratory results. It was once again reiterated that the symptoms were non-specific and overlapped with many other conditions. The researchers stated that establishing differential diagnosis criteria remained very challenging and that clinical discrimination was unreliable as there were no clinical or laboratory parameters that could be relied upon:
What about the others: differential diagnosis of COVID-19 in a German emergency department
“For many common ED diagnoses, COVID-19 should be considered a differential diagnosis. COVID-19 cannot be distinguished from COVID-19 negative respiratory infections by clinical signs, symptoms, or laboratory results. When hospitalization is necessary, the clinical course of COVID-19 airway infections seems to be more severe compared to other respiratory infections.”
“Most patients with mild symptoms can be treated as outpatients, whereas severely ill COVID-19 patients and patients with similar symptoms cross their way in the emergency department (ED). The variety of symptoms is broad and therefore challenging during primary triage, especially to avoid further spread of the infection and to protect staff from infection.
A report of over 370,000 documented symptomatic cases in the U.S. found cough (50%), fever (43%), myalgia (36%), headache (34%), and dyspnea (29%) to be the most common symptoms, but diarrhea (19%), nausea (12%) and taste/smell disorders (< 10%) were also present in a relevant number of cases [11]. Many of these can be found in other common ED diagnoses comprising heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, exacerbation of COPD, and even gastroenterological and oncological diagnoses. Older patients may present with an atypical and therefore misleading clinical picture consisting of falls and malaise [12].
However, a clinical differential diagnosis between COVID-19 and patients presenting with similar symptoms would be very helpful during primary triage.”
Discussion
“Early triage and differential diagnosis of patients presenting with typical clinical symptoms of COVID-19 remain very challenging but relevant. Our study had the following main findings:
Differential diagnosis of typical COVID-19 symptoms is very broad and comprises many common respiratory, infectious, and cardiovascular diseases, whereas respiratory diseases are the most frequent. Diseases from nearly every field of clinical medicine can mimic a clinical picture like that of COVID-19, with respiratory diseases being the most prevalent. Older patients may be even more challenging since the clinical picture may be atypical with syncope and malaise [12].
Patients with COVID-19 present with similar symptoms as COVID-19 negative respiratory infections, so clinical discrimination is not reliable.”
Conclusions
“Differential diagnoses of COVID-19 are plentiful and comprise many common diseases, most notably ailments associated with respiratory impairment. Triage remains challenging in the emergency department since there are no reliable clinical or laboratory parameters to distinguish safely between COVID-19 and airway infections of other origins. When inpatient, COVID-19 takes a more severe clinical course than comparable COVID-19 negative airway infections. Therefore, a strict isolation policy together with broad and rapid testing will remain the most important measures for the months to come.”
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06663-x
In a May 2022 Cochrane review, the author concluded that symptoms have poor diagnostic accuracy and can not rule in or out disease. While the author resorted to the false uniqueness of anosmia and a cough as possible red flags for “Covid,” this was in regards to using fraudulent molecular tests to rule in or out whether the symptoms were caused by “SARS-COV-2,” not that these symptoms themselves were able to be used to diagnose “Covid” clinically. It was also stated that there is no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. It was concluded that the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for “COVID-19” was moderate to low and could only be used to determine whether or not to test. In other words, the test result is the diagnosis, not the presenting symptoms:
How accurate are symptoms and medical examination to diagnose COVID-19?
“Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea.
Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings.
The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.”
In order to put a final nail in the claim that these “viruses” and the resulting diseases can be differentiated and diagnosed clinically, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) provided a list of conditions which should be differentially diagnosed with ‘Covid” based upon the similarities. However, while doing so, they provided the evidence that this was in fact impossible and that negative results from molecular tests were the only means of differentiation, which as we know are fraudulent without being calibrated/validated to purified/isolated “viruses” and without being able to determine disease prevalence clinically:
Community-acquired pneumonia
SIGNS / SYMPTOMS
Differentiating COVID-19 from community-acquired bacterial pneumonia is not usually possible from signs and symptoms.
Influenza infection
SIGNS / SYMPTOMS
Differentiating COVID-19 from community-acquired respiratory tract infections is not possible from signs and symptoms.
Common cold
SIGNS / SYMPTOMS
Differentiating COVID-19 from community-acquired respiratory tract infections is not possible from signs and symptoms.
Other viral or bacterial respiratory infections
SIGNS / SYMPTOMS
Differentiating COVID-19 from community-acquired respiratory tract infections is not possible from signs and symptoms.
Aspiration pneumonia
SIGNS / SYMPTOMS
Differentiating COVID-19 from aspiration pneumonia is not usually possible from signs and symptoms.
Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia
SIGNS / SYMPTOMS
Differentiating COVID-19 from pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia is not usually possible from signs and symptoms.
Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)
SIGNS / SYMPTOMS
Travel history to the Middle East or contact with a confirmed case of MERS.
Differentiating COVID-19 from MERS is not possible from signs and symptoms.
Other
SIGNS / SYMPTOMS
COVID-19 should be considered a differential diagnosis for many conditions. The differential is very broad and includes many common respiratory, infectious, cardiovascular, oncologic, and gastrointestinal diseases.[717]
INVESTIGATIONS
RT-PCR: negative for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA.
Other differentiating tests depend on the suspected diagnosis.
https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-us/3000168/differentials
It should be clear now that the differential diagnosis of diseases caused by specific “viruses” by way of clinical symptoms is impossible. This is why the phrase “It’s only viral and needs to run its course” became a common occurrence at doctors’ offices. Yet with the advent of molecular tests, it became a misconception that PCR, NAAT's, and antibody tests could be used to distinguish between “viruses.” However, the problem remains that not a single one of these tests have ever been calibrated and validated to actual purified and isolated “viral” particles. These tests all rely on disease prevalence to be known in order to be accurate. This was pointed out by the WHO in January 2021:
“WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.“
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
As disease prevalence requires cases of a “virus” to be determined by differential diagnosis based on clinical symptoms, which is impossible, this means that all test results are false positives as true disease prevalence can never be known. Nevertheless, this has not stopped the medical cartel from authorizing and promoting these fraudulent tests as definitive diagnostic tools. This is why we are currently embroiled in a Testing Pandemic, not a “viral” one. This can be seen by the way testing is used to manipulate the perception that the same symptoms of disease are different “viruses” rising and falling due to factors other than the increase and decrease of testing priority. For example, it is well known that “SARS-COV-2” was preferentially tested throughout the “pandemic.” Yet in June 2021, the CDC advised for the testing of RSV for any negative “Covid” tests. Thus, instead of the “It's not Covid, it’s just another virus and it needs to run its course,” it became “If it isn't Covid, it must be RSV.” As this increased testing has occured, so too has a rise in RSV cases:
Coronavirus and RSV
“In June 2021, the CDC issued an official “health advisory” about a rise in RSV cases across the southern United States. It recommended that health care providers test for RSV in all people of any age who have signs and symptoms of respiratory illness, but test negative for the coronavirus.”
https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid19-rsv
It is well known that flu (and other respiratory “viruses") cases declined in 2020 due to decreased testing as there was a lack of testing materials as they were being used to diagnose “Covid.” However, in 2021 medical institutions increased influenza testing on any negative “Covid” test which resulted in increased cases:
Last year vs. this year
“In 2020, public health officials saw unusually low levels of circulating flu being detected.
There are several different reasons for those low levels of flu. Some of them stemmed from significant challenges with testing supplies. Many of the materials needed to create and process COVID tests are the same materials used to create and process flu tests. This wasn’t an issue only in New York or even the U.S.; those shortages were happening worldwide.
Beyond the limited availability of testing materials, other factors that may have played a role in a lower overall number of flu cases include:
COVID-related lockdowns
Wearing masks/face coverings in indoor public settings
Increased hand hygiene
Increased physical distancing
In 2021, a rise in flu cases has been observed over the last several weeks. The New York State Department of Health is deeming influenza to be widespread – meaning there are multiple cases in more than half of New York counties.
“In terms of diagnostic testing, our labs will screen patients for flu if their COVID test is negative,” Dr. Laguio-Vila said. “We are actively looking for influenza cases when it comes to testing.”
https://hive.rochesterregional.org/2021/12/twindemic-2021
The CDC admitted in two separate studies that a decrease in respiratory “virus” testing contributed to the decrease in flu and other respiratory disease cases at the beginning of the “pandemic.” This was due to preferential testing for “Covid” over everything else. They admitted that if visits were not made to healthcare sites participating in surveillance, this reduced the amount of testing performed and decreased the number of cases. They also stated that testing capabilities change annually as do the intentions of which pathogens are tested for in a given year:
“The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, changes in health-seeking behaviors during the pandemic (e.g., designated testing sites for COVID-19) might have contributed to a decrease in reported respiratory virus activity if routine health care visits were not made to health care providers who participate in surveillance. Testing for respiratory viruses was somewhat reduced during 2020–2021 but was higher than typically seen during periods of low virus activity”.
“Some influenza clinical laboratory data and all other respiratory virus data are aggregate, weekly numbers of nucleic acid amplification tests and detections reported to NREVSS, a passive, voluntary surveillance network of clinical, commercial, and public health laboratories. NREVSS aggregate, weekly tests are reported specifically for each pathogen. NREVSS participating laboratories’ testing capabilities vary annually, and testing intentions vary for each pathogen. A range of 50–178 laboratories met the pathogen-specific criteria for inclusion criteria during a given surveillance year.”
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7029a1.htm
“Data from clinical laboratories in the United States indicated a 61% decrease in the number of specimens submitted (from a median of 49,696 per week during September 29, 2019–February 29, 2020, to 19,537 during March 1–May 16, 2020) and a 98% decrease in influenza activity as measured by percentage of submitted specimens testing positive (from a median of 19.34% to 0.33%).”
“Initially, declines in influenza virus activity were attributed to decreased testing, because persons with respiratory symptoms were often preferentially referred for SARS-CoV-2 assessment and testing.”
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm
Even the WHO's Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus admitted that whether cases rise or fall is related to the amount of fraudulent testing performed:
“Perhaps influenza testing fell away as countries concentrated their resources on COVID-19. Large numbers of people might have struggled through bouts of influenza at home, hidden from the statisticians. In a briefing to the media on June 15, 2020, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that “influenza surveillance has either been suspended or is declining in many countries, and there has been a sharp decline in sharing of influenza information and viruses because of the COVID-19 pandemic”. He added that “compared with the last 3 years, we've seen a dramatic decrease in the number of specimens tested for influenza globally”.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30508-7/fulltext
Thus, we can clearly see that differentiating between different “viruses” has absolutely nothing to do with clinical diagnosis which is considered impossible. The diagnosis comes from fraudulent molecular testing which can never be accurate as the tests were never calibrated nor validated to the assumed “viral” particles in the first place. As test accuracy also relies upon disease prevalence to be determined clinically prior to testing, the results will always be false and a misdiagnosis will always occur. As long as the medical institutions continue to play the foolish game of trying to differentiate between the various stages of same symptoms of the same detoxification process in order to provide chemical toxins as a “cure,” there can be no progress towards understanding how to truly heal in a time of dis-ease.
Dr. Tom Cowan broke down a recent paper by Dr. Peter McCullough (which I hope to address next week as well). It is entertaining what McCullough latches on to as “proof” of a “virus.” 😉
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Jau2sixlsnt3/
Fear is a major factor we are facing on a daily basis which hinders our progress in ending this "pandemic" and the fraud of Germ theory. To address this,
joined the Crazz Files podcast to discuss the "deep rooted fear behind the COVID PSYOP and also take a look at how we can break away from the shackles of fear and return to our natural place."https://crazzfiles.com/podcast-breaking-the-shackles-of-fear-with-dawn-lester/
This week, a friend cancelled a birthday party.
He said he tested positive for con-vid.
I asked if he had any symptoms. He said mild cough. Ok, it's winter, many are coughing because indoor air is dry in many places...
But because of this testing propaganda, he did a rapid test and now is convinced that he has the mild con-vid.
Umm ok, but before con-vid, how many people would test for the flu or rsv? Only the very sick in hospital or those who have severe pre existing conditions.
But hey it's the new normal, where people test for things because how cool it is that we can find out what's wrong with us!
The marketing campaign is successful, as long as the tests are cheap or free.
Wait until people have to pay for them...
"Conclusion: [...] COVID-19 cannot be distinguished from COVID-19 negative respiratory infections by clinical signs, symptoms, or laboratory results."
HOLY CRAP MIKE! This is DEVASTATING! How did you find this paper?