How Solving the Wrong Problem is Destroying Western Civilization

In my latest analysis, peer-reviewed and published in International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research (, I ask the question no one “in charge” ever bothered to ask:

At what point, during an outbreak/pandemic, does it become ethical to switch from symptom-based testing to indiscriminate testing?

Everyone assumed more testing was better.  The answer is: it depends entirely on the cost of the false positives (CFP) relative to the cost of the false negatives. Their assumption is based on a cost/benefit analysis misapplied to a balance of risk problem.

Here is a figure from my analysis.  Societies must know the cost of CFP relative to CFN before deciding how to react appropriately to pandemics otherwise they risk destroying themselves.

Figure 2. Total Costs Under Six Scenarios Across Testing Levels. Cost units are arbitrary and represent in “real” terms the number of people affected by costs considering both CFP and CFN.

Below is Fig 1 .

Figure 2. US Unemployment 1/10-present. The massive rise is usually attributed to
“COVID-19” but is actually due to the unnecessary and damaging effects of
societal responses mediated through mass false positive rates of diagnoses of
“cases” of COVID-19. Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/20

Lyons-Weiler, 2020. Balance of Risk in COVID-19 Reveals the Extreme Cost of the False Positives. Intern J Vacc Theor, Pract, Research. 1(2):209-222.

COVID-19 public health responses, including lockdowns and diagnostic testing strategies, have had consequences. Economic costs (see the CHD paper in this issue) could reach $16 trillion dollars, 90% of the US annual GDP. While harm to small businesses, unemployment, worsening poverty, death from cancer, increased suicides, social isolation, and restriction of freedom all increase the perceived need for drastic responses from the top, flawed measures are costly. A diagnostic assay2 of tests for COVID-19 depends for its validity on its sensitivity and specificity assessed in terms of the true positive rate (TPR), false positive rate (FPR), true negative rate (TNR), and false negative rate (FNR) of the assays. In this pandemic, Reverse Transcriptase — Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing has been relied on for drastic top-down responses (as in shutting down the economy of whole nations or the entire world). Here I focus on false positive results where RT-PCR testing suggests many infections by SARS-CoV-2 where there are none. I show by mathematical modeling how reporting positive results of RT-PCR testing, ones known to be false in a measurable percentage of instances, is at least 40 times more impactful (in a detrimental way) than increasing or decreasing the number of tests conducted. To balance the risks of errors in diagnosis, false positive results must be minimized by validating nucleotide sequences and estimates of viremia to avoid flagging individuals as contagious when they are not.

Current Issue

Vol. 1 No. 2 (2021): COVID-19

This second issue in the first volume of the IJVTPR addresses COVID-19 from its historical, economic, engineering, governmental, scientific, and treatment perspectives. The article by Dr. Lee on Gardasil9 replaces the one that appeared in the prior issue (with correction of two errata and some added notes), and the article appearing here from the Children’s Health Defense Team first appeared with permission in The Defender December 14, 2020.Published: 2021-01-05Articles

View All IssuesIt is the purpose of the IJVTPR to enable independent theoreticians, practitioners, and researchers to publish peer-reviewed work about vaccines. 

This article first appeared on

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

More from James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: