Re: suck out pathogens with a mini-pump?

<a_weisman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1112804411.470453.279650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Not criminal in the legal sense. Criminal as in amoral. Not criminal as
> in violating any criminal statute.

When an insurer tells a test manufacturer to make their tests less reliable
(less sensitive) "or else", isn't that racketeering?

> What do the test manufacturers get out of it?

Continued orders from the insurers.
They are at gunpoint.

> But the insurers don't choose the labs, the doctors do (with some
> exceptions but usually it is the doctor who chooses a lab if the
> insurer requires them to but not a particular lab).

There are only a handful of test manufacturers for all those labs.
I had a 3-hour phonecall with a german lab worker who told me that their WB
was deliberately made much less sensitive.
Noone ever gave a reason, but they did admit it, only after questioning.

> Lyme testing is unreliable from all labs.

That's exactly my point.
Those tests are *deliberately* inaccurate.

> It isn't a conspiracy that the tests suck. Some things are hard to test
> for accurately.

Bull***.
I tested positive. Then I needed to be re-tested. Negative.
The lab technician didn't trust it and decided to "develop" the WB longer.
Presto, positive.
She called the manufacturer, who told her: "We decreased the sensitivity of
the development fluid".



.