from BrownStone Website
...fostered and accompanied quite a scientific revolution in virology.
Acknowledging this radical change, some illustrious scholars alerted their scientific community on a hazardous drift away from investigating the viral ecology, pathogenesis, and disease potential, along with viral identification by testing.
'In summary', wrote Calisher and al. (2001),
Their position paper (Old Guard urges Virologists to Go Back to Basics) was noticed and its lead author, Professor Charles H. Calisher, was interviewed by Science.
The fundamental issue raised by Calisher et al. (2001) was that, without complementing genomic testing with phenotypic and epidemiologic information,
In other words, 'miasma' and 'germ' theories should go along together, complementing each other.
Calisher et al. (2001)' claim has proved to be quite prophetic. That issue shakes the very foundation on which the dominant approach to COVID-19 'pandemic' management and policy lays upon.
Once the virus was identified,
And mass testing has been advocated and deployed in quite an impossible effort to trace the viral diffusion in real time.
This approach is based on the fatal conceit that,
In a similar vein, vaccination has been advocated and deployed in view to eradicate the viral presence and stop the viral spread, through discriminatory measures against the unvaccinated in many cases.
For both mass testing and mass vaccination, the actual medical conditions and epidemiological contexts were neglected.
Consequently, a critical question remained unasked:
Drawing upon Calisher et al. (2001), testing positive does not necessarily imply being or becoming sick.
In a nutshell,
But this circumstance does not tell us much about their underlying medical conditions, neither the reasons for their hospitalization or death (Biondi 2021).
First of all, testing techniques are never perfect...
With low viral incidence (for example 1%), a test with 99% sensitivity and 99% specificity is likely to generate only a 50% positive predictive value (with 10% incidence, 90.91% positive predictive value).
Moreover, PCR robots need to be calibrated, with higher calibration values being increasingly uncorrelated with viral active presence in the host.
Only when a properly calibrated test is a true positive, it may indicate that the virus is actively present. But this presence does not imply that its host is or will become sick.
In many COVID-19 cases, no illness is developed (surely thanks to general immune defense), or hidden illness showing no symptoms (so-called asymptomatic cases), or just a minor disease that may remain quite unnoticed (unless a test alarms its host beyond reason).
In the remaining cases, more serious illness may be developing, requiring medical attention and showing medical evidence of disease.
Since late spring 2020, statistical and medical evidence have been available showing which people are vulnerable and then exposed at serious risk.
As a matter of fact, development of serious illness and severe outcome has been limited to a tiny share of population, the vast majority of 'cases' being,
Therefore, both testing and vaccination may be directed to these vulnerable people, as long as adverse events from vaccination are comprehensively gathered and carefully investigated, in view to enable doctors to advice on vaccination benefits and risks at the individual level.
This alternative approach is based upon informed consent and respect of fundamental rights (Biondi 2022a).
For instance, according to the Florida Department of Health's New COVID-19 Testing Guidance (Florida Health Depth 2022):
While contact tracing and isolation may be important for some infectious diseases, it is futile and counterproductive for common infections such as influenza and Covid-19.
A case is only a case if a person is sick.
An alternative public health approach may seek for focused protection of vulnerable people, including through voluntary vaccination campaigns, while trusting pre-existing immune defense and emergent natural immunity for non-vulnerable ones...