The Fraud Behind Viral Testing

When The Test Itself Is The Disease

The diagnosis came back positive. But what if the test itself was never validated against a real virus? That’s not a conspiracy theory… it’s a documented admission buried in the fine print of the very test kits sold to hospitals and public health agencies across America.

Dr. David Rasnick, a PhD chemist from Georgia Tech who spent years inside Abbott Laboratories — one of the world’s most powerful diagnostics companies — says the entire framework of modern viral testing is built on a foundation of scientific sand. Abbott, incidentally, is no stranger to regulatory scrutiny; the company paid $1.5 billion in 2012 to resolve criminal and civil investigations related to fraudulent drug marketing.

And Rasnick should know. He was one of two PhDs hired directly out of graduate school in 1978 to set up Abbott’s chemistry group in its diagnostics division. He watched from the inside as the pharmaceutical-diagnostics complex learned to monetize fear… and the test was always the weapon of choice.

The Abbott Insider Speaks

Rasnick left Abbott in 1980 to start his own biotech company, but his years inside the diagnostics industry gave him a front-row seat to how testing is designed, deployed, and, he argues, weaponized.

He would later spend nearly two decades at UC Berkeley alongside Dr. Peter Duesberg, the world’s leading authority on retroviruses, who argued from 1987 onward that HIV is a harmless passenger virus unrelated to AIDS. Duesberg — a member of the National Academy of Sciences with an Outstanding Investigator Grant — lost his federal funding and his ability to mentor graduate students as a direct result of going public with his dissent.

What Rasnick discovered when he examined the package inserts — the technical documents that accompany HIV antibody tests and PCR tests alike — stopped him cold.

“They acknowledge, in the test documents themselves, that they have no authentic virus to compare their tests against,” he states. “The tests were always fraudulent. HIV tests, all of them.” The FDA’s own package insert for the Uni-Gold Recombigen HIV-1/2 test lists extensive performance disclaimers while relying on indirect serological markers rather than direct viral isolation.

A Test Without a Standard Is No Test At All

In any credible scientific or clinical laboratory setting, a diagnostic test must be validated against a known, authenticated sample of the thing it claims to detect. This is Laboratory Science 101. Rasnick argues that HIV antibody tests produced by Abbott and others were validated not against purified, isolated virus, but against serum from assumed-positive patients — a form of circular reasoning that can never be independently falsified.

The implications are significant. As Rasnick puts it: “If the tests were fraudulent and they were diagnosing the disease with the tests — then the disease is fraudulent too.” A peer-reviewed paper in Frontiers in Public Health titled “Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent” chronicles this scientific controversy in detail, noting that Nobel laureate Kary Mullis — the inventor of the PCR test — strongly opposed PCR’s use as a diagnostic standard for HIV.

The PCR Problem: Cycle Thresholds and Phantom Positives

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test amplifies genetic fragments to detectable levels.

The critical variable is the cycle threshold (Ct): how many times the sample is amplified. Mullis, speaking in 1997 specifically about HIV testing, expressed concern that the test’s extreme sensitivity made results clinically unreliable when applied to infectious disease diagnosis — a position confirmed in context by USA Today’s fact-check of his original statements.

The concern about Ct values is not fringe. Public Health Ontario’s own technical guidance document acknowledges that “the risk of false positive results increases as the pretest probability of COVID-19 decreases” and recommends caution when Ct values approach the assay cut-off.

Canada’s public health guidance further states that “Ct values should not be used alone to make concrete clinical or public health decisions.” Most damaging, a 2022 investigation published in PLOS ONE confirmed that the earliest CDC PCR tests for COVID-19 had design flaws and contamination that caused false positive results.

Forty Years of Disease Theater

Rasnick traces a pattern across four decades in which disease definitions and their companion tests have been shaped by political and commercial pressures more than by rigorous science. The Duesberg hypothesis — that AIDS is driven by lifestyle factors like nitrite inhalant use and immunosuppressive drug use, not a retrovirus — remains vigorously contested, and the mainstream scientific consensus rejects it.

That said, peer-reviewed literature documents that the controversy itself was systematically suppressed rather than openly debated, with Duesberg stripped of funding and graduate students for voicing his objections.

Luc Montagnier — the French virologist who won the 2008 Nobel Prize for co-discovering HIV and who died in February 2022 at age 89… himself became increasingly critical of viral testing orthodoxy in his later years. Kary Mullis, who died in August 2019, just months before COVID-19 emerged, invented PCR in 1983 and spent much of his later career arguing it was being misused as a disease-detection tool.

What Does Good Science Actually Require?

Koch’s Postulates: The 19th-century gold standard for establishing that a microorganism causes a disease… require that the pathogen be isolated, grown in pure culture, and reintroduced to produce the same disease.

While mainstream science argues these postulates have been superseded by modern molecular methods, Reuters’ own fact-check concedes the original postulates were not fulfilled for SARS-CoV-2, though it argues updated criteria were met. A peer-reviewed NIH paper notes that as of 2021, available data only fulfilled two of the four original Koch’s postulates for SARS-CoV-2 in specific disease contexts.

Critics like Rasnick argue these workarounds conveniently lower the bar whenever the official narrative needs defending.

The Takeaway for Health-Conscious Readers

The healthcare fraud machine surrounding testing is not hypothetical. COVID-19 testing fraud has already triggered what federal attorneys call the largest avalanche of healthcare fraud investigations in U.S. history, with billions in fraudulent billing tied to the same testing infrastructure Rasnick critiques. Laboratory fraud more broadly has been described by legal analysts as “the gift that keeps on giving” due to its systemic, recurring nature.

The homesteader and preparedness communities have always understood one foundational truth: question the official story, especially when that story comes attached to a product someone is selling. Viral diagnostic tests are products… sold by companies like Abbott and Roche, generating billions in revenue, validated by the same regulatory agencies that partner with industry.

As David Rasnick’s career — from Abbott’s diagnostics lab to the courtrooms where he dismantled HIV test evidence — makes clear, the science behind them is far weaker than the public has been told.

The next time a new pathogen appears and a new test is rushed to market, the first question every informed citizen should ask is simple: Was this test validated against an isolated, purified, authenticated sample of the virus it claims to detect?

If the answer is no — and it often is — the test is not science. It’s theater.

Source: https://www.offthegridnews.com/what-they-dont-want-you-to-know/the-fraud-behind-viral-testing/