Posted to Wood House 76 on 24 June 2026. Archived to 14 November 2025 comment date.
14 November 2025
Katherine Watt, commenting on Reminders for L.A., Chicago, and Everywhere Else: “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated” was a Lie Propped Up by Bad, Data-Distorting Definitions:
An interesting record on this topic (the frauds of infection classification, antibody tests, etc.,) is FDA’s May 19, 2021 statement: “Antibody Testing Is Not Currently Recommended to Assess Immunity After COVID-19 Vaccination: FDA Safety Communication” –
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reminding the public and health care providers that results from currently authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination. While a positive antibody test result can be used to help identify people who may have had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, more research is needed in people who have received a COVID-19 vaccination. Currently authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests have not been evaluated to assess the level of protection provided by an immune response to COVID-19 vaccination. If antibody test results are interpreted incorrectly, there is a potential risk that people may take fewer precautions against SARS-CoV-2 exposure…”
Available on Wayback machine,
https://web.archive.org/web/20220322120619/https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/antibody-testing-not-currently-recommended-assess-immunity-after-covid-19-vaccination-fda-safety along with another FDA information page: https://web.archive.org/web/20220319140915/https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-devices/antibody-serology-testing-covid-19-information-patients-and-consumers which notes that
“At this time, SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests do not tell you if:
-You currently have COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
-You have immunity that will prevent COVID-19,
-You need a COVID-19 vaccine, or
-Your COVID-19 vaccine worked.”
The current version of this statement (last updated April 2024) is here:
Jessica Hockett:
Thank you, will review. What I read at first glance is “SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests tell you nothing.”
Related notes:
David Crowe interview, 27 May 2020
[JAH Note: I had posted an AI-d “transcript” – paraphrased, not verbatim – in my original comments and have replaced it below with a near-verbatim version]
Aditya Sangore: Coming to the antibody testing, because like recently in my city, Pune, they have developed uh antibody test which they claim that it is 90 uh 98% specificity of this test. So what problems do you see in the antibody tests, sir? Because they are very fast and the problems have been–
David Crowe: Every manufacturer of tests, whether it’s PCR or antibody, claims that their tests are 99% accurate.
Aditya Sangore: Yes.
David Crowe: Because you can’t get a test approved unless it’s, claims to be 99% or close to 99% accurate. The manufacturers are in charge of testing their own tests.
Aditya Sangore: Yeah.
David Crowe: I don’t know if you remember the Volkswagen scandal in the United States where Volkswagen was cheating on the gas mileage tests.
Aditya Sangore: Oh yes.
David Crowe: Right. So this was a big corporation that wanted to to be able to advertise that they have the best gas mileage. So they cheated. So we can’t, we cannot rely totally on what the tests say.
Aditya Sangore: Yes.
David Crowe: One of the interesting things about antibody tests is that they are testing generally at very low numbers. Between one and five percent. Antibody tests reflect everybody who’s been infected since the beginning. So everybody in say if they tested people in Canada where I live. Everybody who is infected in January should be antibody positive. Everybody infected in February, everybody infected in March, April, May, they should all be antibody positive. When they do a PCR test for an infection, that is just today. Maybe yesterday I was anti- I was PCR negative. Maybe tomorrow I’ll be PCR negative. All the PCR test says is today you are positive. And yet the percentage testing positive on PCR is often ten times higher. So this makes no sense. Antibody tests in places that have had a lot of cases should now be up at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80%. And they’re not. They’re down in very low numbers. So I don’t trust the antibody tests at all because of these low numbers that are being produced.
Aditya Sangore: So supposedly this antibody test is giving results for some antibodies that are produced because of COVID-19. But do you think that any other viruses or any other medical conditions will give antibodies for this COVID-19?
David Crowe: Well, one of the things the manufacturers do is they often test their antibody tests on other conditions. And several manufacturers noted that their tests tested positive with other viruses, bacteria, autoimmune conditions. So we know that’s the case.
One study in Holland looked at old blood samples from 2018, and they found that fourteen percent of old blood samples tested positive. How can this be? You know, either the virus was circulating in Holland two years ago, in which case it’s obviously not a problem, or the antibody test is not accurate. So the, in general, the amount of validation that has been done is not sufficient. Another problem is that we don’t know that all the tests are saying the same thing. Nobody’s taken, say, ten different antibody tests and taken blood and run the same blood through all ten tests for say a thousand people. ‘Cause what we could find is that there are samples that are positive on one and negative on the other three, samples that are positive on three and negative on one.
A journalist in England believed that she had the coronavirus. She had been sick about a month ago. Well she got four different antibody tests and she tested herself four times. And she was positive twice and negative twice. So the antibody tests definitely have problems. They’ve not been properly validated and we have really no idea what it means. We have no idea if it means that you’re protected. More importantly, we have no idea that if you test negative, it means that you could become sick from coronavirus.
We have no idea what these tests mean.
JAH Comments:
Regardless of what the tests are testing, Crowe is correct, using the standards of epidemiology and taking the “outbreak” at face value.
He’s saying, “Look, we’ve had a lot of PCR positives. Even if you discount the false positives, shouldn’t the people who supposedly tested positive also show up positive on the antibody tests? By the PCR numbers alone, we should be seeing high antibody rates. So why aren’t we?” New York City AB testing in spring 2020 DID come back at the rates Crowe proposed (but he likely didn’t know that).
Sunetra Gupta apparently agreed with Crowe as to how high the antibody percentages should have been. Gupta’s timeline places an evolutionary event no earlier than late summer 2019.
By March 2020, she and the Oxford Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease group were estimating that about half of the United Kingdom had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with “arrival” dated to January or even December. The Financial Times framed it this way:
“The Oxford results would mean the country had already acquired substantial herd immunity through the unrecognised spread of Covid-19 over more than two months. If the findings are confirmed by testing, then the current restrictions could be removed much sooner than ministers have indicated.”
What if Crowe and Gupta are “right”? The pieces can fit together without requiring a virus to be causal, or singularly causal, of illness or of any meaningful person-to-person “spread.”
NYC’s simultaneously high % pos for PCR and sera in spring 2020 has not been explained, including by people with faith in such tests. They would have to say that it had already ‘spread’ — and did so with no impact on all-cause mortality until after “15 Days to Slow the Spread” was called.
——
Journalist in England — all a part of the “we don’t have enough/enough of the right tests” plot line:
One more: https://woodhouse76.com/2025/03/11/if-its-so-deadly-then-why-wasnt-it-deadly/
Jessica Hockett to Katherine Watt, 10 October 2025 via Preliminary reaction to “Disappearing Flu Data with Dr. Robert Malone, J.J. Couey, PhD, and Others” (CHD Defender Show episode, 3 Nov 2022) [Archive Today version]
[Emphasis added]
Thank you again for archiving this video. I had never seen it.
The fact that the recording even took place is interesting, as is the combination of individuals participating in it. I said previously that no one in the conversation says the flu shot is harmful. What I should have said is that no one says that as DIRECTLY as I would like them to say it. What I hear Robert Malone describing are the cumulative effects of repeated vaccination.2 Nass does give the H1N1 example of Danica Skowronski’s finding that getting the H1N1 shot increased the likelihood of getting flu by 2.5 times.
No one actually addressed or explained the disappearance of positive tests for influenza; Jonathan Couey came closest.
Malone and Nass in particular don’t challenge or question disease-causing pathogens. (Neither does RFK, but that’s no surprise.)
In some ways, they all seem to be speaking in code. Malone is right about one reason for the flu shot program, and Nass is (mostly) accurate about influenza-attributed pneumonia deaths.
The most interesting statement in the whole show for me is from Jonathan Couey: “They’ve led us to believe that seroprevalence is really important. And I think they’ve done this for purposes of national security. They have also accomplished this by disingenuously emphasizing antibodies to structural proteins.”
If I’m interpreting him correctly here, I agree entirely and would go further: I believe AB tests may have been deliberately calibrated “low” (and PCR tests very “high”/sensitive) initially (exception: New York and some other cities) in order to maintain two illusions:
1) lockdowns worked,
2) herd immunity is a thing, i.e., we haven’t reached the “goal” yet but will eventually and need vaccination in order to do so.
What “national security” priority Couey is referring to, I don’t know, but I believe there may have been a very significant, possibly intentional flu shot failure in fall 2019/2020 that doesn’t show up in ACM time-series data because fraud was committed (with New York City and possibly other cities/places in the U.S. and/or other countries).
I don’t think the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and intelligence agencies and military forces here and elsewhere were actually responding (even in a “fake” way) to something called SARS-CoV-2.
Excerpt from Engler/Hockett Novelty & Immunity: Why were we so blind to the obvious? (original) [WH76 republished version.] 12 March 2025:
Answering a question during a media telebriefing on 12 February 2020, Nancy Messoinier said,
We have the beginnings of the serological tests, because we now have patients in the United States, we’re able to collect additional specimens but we have to collect them over time so that we can have the appropriate timing of specimens to make sure that we understand what the immune response looks like.
Once we complete the gathering of those specimens from the patients we’ll be able to pretty rapidly, I would say within a couple of weeks, three weeks, four weeks, be able to have a test available but right now, we’re still in the range of testing of gathering the appropriate specimens from the patients in the U.S.
An agency report about “early spread” that included phylogenetic analysis and retrospectively identified cases said,
“Results of serologic testing are not presented here, because serology (i.e., testing for antibody to SARS-CoV-2) is likely to be a relatively insensitive means of detecting a newly emergent virus, particularly when the specimens were collected at random rather than from persons most likely to be infected (in contrast, for example, to viral testing of outpatients or hospitalized patients with acute respiratory disease) and because serologic assays generally do not approach 100% specificity unless some form of confirmatory testing is available.
For example, a hypothetical serologic survey in the Seattle metropolitan area (population of 3.5 million) conducted after the first 3,500 infections would find a true seroprevalence of 0.1%, whereas the use of an assay with 99% specificity would be expected to produce false positives in 10 times as many samples. Serologic surveys, nonetheless, are useful in tracking the progress of the pandemic once established and have the potential advantage of detecting all infections, regardless of the symptom profile.
So, even if we play along with the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was a “new” agent from a bat cave, wet market, or laboratory, it sounds like retro-testing samples that were collected for other purposes (as in the case of the Red Cross blood study), cannot be linked to an individual (e.g., wastewater), or which, at most, could only be connected to individuals experiencing mundane flu-like symptoms, is inappropriate and very little can be inferred from the results. We therefore see no reason to believe that testing early samples collected and retained for purposes would yield results that could be used to say SARS-CoV-2 was “new” or started “spreading” at a certain point in time.
Apparently, it’s only when an arbitrary human decision about the existence of a pandemic is made that the “progress” of the identified agent can be “tracked.” The CDC reinforced the idea that a new virus could be followed through a population presumed to be “naive” by launching a serology dashboard with rates derived for each state. Looking back, it’s easy to see how such data-reporting tools validated claims about a new spreading threat.
Leave a Reply