There is NO variant test BOTG Report
I recently heard a claim on some media outlet that 71% of all Covid cases in that area were the Delta variant and another outlet claimed 40% in a different area. Of course no details about how testing for variants are completed or who can do them, just the usual parroting of information from some government PR person.
I am one one of the boards for a multi-hospital regional healthcare system on the east coast. We recently had a board meeting with a Covid update as part of our agenda. One of the executives suggested that the Delta variant was a major factor for all the cases. Naturally I put on my on No Agenda Hat and asked some questions after the meeting with this person.
It turns out in the hospitals in our system are not testing for variants, because they can't. Only two highly recognized learning hospitals can provide those tests regionally and even then they can only test for general variants not the Delta. Only the feds or maybe the state has the ability to test specific variants. But the hospitals in our system are not even sending samples to the learning hospitals let alone the feds for testing. Not sure how the CDC or any organization can accurately suggest statistics about the variants.
Also an additional fact discussed on the show and I can verify. The healthcare database systems that feed into state and then CDC have no way of knowing how many times a person has been tested. Meaning if a person has been tested three times positive for Covid that is three new cases of the Covid not three tests for for one person. Most people are getting multiple tests in our system once they test positive.
Subject: Peer review
The phrase ‘high score’ connected some dots for my on this for me that could make it even more
damning or fauci as the bureaucrat who likely sets the framework under which the paper was “rated”.
This goes back directly to climate change and more broadly the shaping of US thought at the top
levels of government in broad areas by a few people (if not one individual entirely).
Unfortunately I’m sleep deprived and can’t trust myself to provide detail id stand by at the
moment, but I’ll follow up today or tomorrow. The broad view is that the federal government is
targeted for litigation endlessly, and the whole role of government (in my mind) has now been
shaped towards minimizing the exposure to the risk of litigation on every level, both direct
consequences of funding mistakes, as well as potential lawsuits to accuse them of
bias/favoritism/cronyism. As a result, weve reached a point (pun intended) where any open
government funded project for research is awarded based on a score, with broad categories being
reviewed and assigned point values for funding that provides the appearance of being unbiased.
But they aren’t unbiased in reality because in the effort to avoid litigation the scoring mechanism
becomes so clearly laid out that the only thing separating one possibility from another would be
how that scoring criteria was shaped. Think all federal money to California on a open application
state-wide grant project going to one neighborhood with the exact balance of racial composition and
household income that scored perfectly. Think how the government can finds only climate change
research again and again so the media can point to that 97% number and not be sued, despite the
actual impact being debatable.
I have never applied for a grant through NIH, but you can be assured they have a similar system in
place to review grant proposals before awarding money. It was not controversial or debatable in my
field of study that NIS money goes reliably to those who can read the weather best and year after
year write applications that are awarded the highest grants to fund large projects. This is not
based on pure research genius, it’s entirely favoring those who can interpret the federal releases
correctly and craft applications for the project the federal agency has shaped the grant process to
fund, and typically they couldn’t care less on a personal level about whatever the large project
If Fauci said it scored well it was without question his intent to fund gain of function research,
as he almost certainly shapes the broad agenda of the NIH in his role if nothing else. That also
means these application savants for the NIH (if they weren’t so scared of fauci) could point you to
the material which shows this