Rapid Antigen Test Controls

All of the content that is put out on this Substack is going to be for free. If you feel so inclined to donate or Sign up for a Paid Subscription that is very much appreciated. It will keep me writing, putting out content and continuing the largest Control Studies Project falsifying Virology.

After writing a post encouraging people to do DIY controls of their own, I felt it necessary to lead by example in doing some of my own, so here goes:

I bought 50 Rapid Antigen Tests from branded online medical retailers. The first batch that I bought ALL had the Quality Control Tape Seal broken. The actual tests inside were sealed in their own, unopened bags, but nevertheless it was something to note.

It would turn out to be of interest as all of the indicator lines on these tests were feint. They never gave a strong readout, even with some of the substances that gave very strong positives, those same substances when used on these tests gave weak lines here. *These were the cheapest tests (that’ll learn me)*

Here is an excerpt from the included booklet that says that the Lines colour and strength is irrelevant to the fall “diagnosis", i.e if there is a line no matter how feint, it is to be considered positive.

They make some very bold claims in these manuals that these tests are HIGHLY specific, upwards of 98%… and can even discern between the exact type of infection you have compared to a raft of other “viral”and bacterial “diseases”. Even going as far as claiming these tests can determine exact strains of “viruses”.

One very strange oddity found in these manuals was the section on “interfering substances”. Presumably these CAN or are known to give what they determine to be “false positives”. In this section is a whole load of fairly commonly used nasal sprays for allergies and the like, this should be pretty concerning in and of itself. However the MOST bizarre finding on this comes in the form of “mucin”. This IS the protein that makes up Mucus…. i.e a test swab put up your nose and meant to swab mucus is interfered with by………mucus. To put it even more bluntly, they are claiming mucus gives positives regardless of what is in it……..LOL!

I tested all 50 of these and wasn’t satisfied, as none of the indicator lines came through with what I considered to be “Strong Positives”, so I purchased two different types of tests amounting to 20 more. The later 10 were actually a two-fer as they had two channels on each stick, one measuring “Sars Cov 2” the other measuring “Influenza A or B”. So all in all I did 90 different control tests, seen here (Some I threw away at the start if they didn’t register at all).

I did two control tests that were just used in the “regular” way on myself to see what they did. I tried one in the nose and one with sputum. I was feeling fine at the time, both were Negative.

Out of these first 50 tests these were the results I obtained:

Failed Tests (No Control Line, No Positive Line).

Bicarbonate of Soda Solution, White Spirit, MSG solution, Olive Oil, White Vinegar and WD40.

Take away from this was that Oils and Harsh Acids/Alkali voided all results.

Negative Tests (Control Line but No Positive line)

So the interesting thing about even a negative test on these is that the Control line is supposedly made up of Antibodies that still bind with supposed Antigens just “Non Specific”antigens. So the fact that a lot of these substances registered on the Control Line at all is still a falsification as they should not contain ANY antigens what so ever.

Rose,Coke,Nutella,Banana,Orange Juice, Beer,Orangina,Plum and Protein Bar.

The take away from this is that the substances fare much better when they are less viscous. Things such as Nutella,the Protein bar and banana took a long time to register the control line as the wicking of the dye was MUCH slower… did this cause the negative? As you will see lots of substances with both nuts and proteins tested positive later on, so potentially.

The strange part to this is that soft drinks and alcohols tested negative. I never tested the exact same brand of soft drinks or types of alcohol as I began to get positives elsewhere. Could suggest further testing with these with the “better tests”.

Positive Tests (Control Line and Positive Line)

Yeast x7 (varying mixtures and concentrations), Peanuts,Vodka,Gin and Balsamic Vinegar*

As you can see from the above picture, the positive line is extremely feint, but is certainly present. I tested all of these substances again with different tests and they all came up with very strong positives, so I can conclude it must have just been (more) shoddy tests.

*The Balsamic Vinegar I think was a “False Positive”. It didn’t register ANY line, but after about half an hour it looked like it had stained the lines instead. I think this is a noteworthy observation as the way the initial wicking of the dye occurs can be inferred as to whether the test has “worked”or not.

I used this first 50 tests as a very loose sweep and search for indication of what might be being picked up in these tests if not for a specific “Sars Cov 2 “antigen. Having got some good feedback I purchased 10 more. This time more expensive and these tests had all of their security seals on and intact.

Failed Tests (No Control, No Test Line)

White Vinegar, White Spirit, MSG solution.

Take away from this is that we are seeing similar null results with acids. I have had a theory with a lot of this that these tests that they are measuring generic amino acids and proteins. Given MSG is the salt of an amino acid, I thought I would try that. Seemingly the salt content neutralizes what is being picked up.

Negative Tests (Control Line, No Test Line)

Again a lot of these substances should NOT contain antigens yet supposedly being with a poly clonal antibody to register the control line.

Sugar solution and Soy.

Take away from this is that again Soy, which I had chose for its amino acid content maybe had its effects neutralized by the salt content. Interesting that Sugar solution tested negative so we can rule out sugar causing the positives we see next.

Positive Tests

7up Zero, Yeast x2 (Differing Concentrations and maturity), Gin, Vodka.

I was confident what the results from these would be given the first 50 trials, so I recorded the test being done and lines registering.

Take Aways from these is that the alcohols give very strong and quick positives, the 7Up gave a strong positive but took 5 minutes to register and the Yeasts gave a weak positive.

The Final test I worked up to was buying the most expensive test and hence supposedly “most accurate” test available. This was a dual test which claimed to test for both “Sars Cov 2”, “Influenza A & B” in two different channels.

The claim is with these tests that they can test positive for either ‘Influenza A”, “Influenza B” or Both.

Failed Test (No Control, No Test Line)

White Vinegar, Lemon Juice.

Negative Test (Control Line, No Test Line)

Sugar Solution, It was negative within the 30minute time window but tested positive for both “Flu A&B”after that.

Positive Tests (Control Line and Any Test Line)

7Up Zero: Strong Positive Flu A Negative/Weak Positive Flu B, Negative Sars Cov 2.

7Up: Strong Positives Sars Cov 2 and both Flu A & B

Pepsi Zero: Strong Positives Sars Cov 2 and both Flu A & B

Pepsi: Strong Positives Sars Cov 2 and both Flu A & B

Vodka: Strong Positives Sars Cov 2 and both Flu A & B

Yeast Immature Solution: Strong Positives Sars Cov 2 and Flu A, Negative Flu B.

Yeast Mature Solution: Strong Positives Sars Cov 2 and both Flu A & B

Observations

Comparing the two videos above between Pepsi Zero and Vodka. You can clearly see the way that the dye from the well, wicks up through the test is different. With all of the alcohols, Vodka in these and Gin in the single tests the dye wicks up and registers positive in the test line BEFORE registering at the Control Line.

This is different to the way that the soft drinks and yeast register. They wick the dye through the positive channels, register positive at the control channel THEN come back and over time with a few minutes register at the test line.

This action of registering at the Test Line first could be attributed to a “Strong Positive”. However the boldest lines seen in any of the tests have been from the soft drinks, namely Pepsi. These tests wicked through the test line and then registered the most strong positive AFTER the Control line.

Conclusions

There is a published, peer reviewed paper where they did these control tests using lots of soft drinks, alcohols and even bottled water testing positive on “Sars Cov 2” tests. The claim is that the acidity of these products caused a “modulation of the function of the antibodies in the test”.

They claim that the buffer is essential as it will provide a buffered pH. For the claim of the mechanism for “False positives” being true that would mean the buffer should be at a standard human body pH.

Standard healthy mucus is said to be ever so slightly acid, raising to neutral/very slightly basic when displaying symptoms.

This means the buffer, if used to smooth pH MUST be effectively Neutral to work… a pH of 7.

Looking at the results of this experiment in regards to pH we see lots of acids in the form of Lemon Juice and White Vinegar failing the test. These are at almost the same acid pH as the soft drinks tested which all tested positive. We see Basic substances such as Bicarbonate of Soda Solution Failing the tests. We see pH neutral Vodka and Gin giving very consistent positives, we also see pH neutral to very slightly acid (depending on maturity) Yeast Solutions giving consistent positives. We see pH neutral Sugar and MSG solutions being negative and failing the tests. All in all we have fails/negatives and positives at all pHs.

Given this mixture of results with seemingly zero correlation to pH I think we can safely say that the pH is not affecting the outcome of the results in any discernible manner.

What are the tests measuring if not “Specific Antigens”

In terms of properties of the samples we can safely assume that it must be less viscous. All of the “pastes/purees/thicker liquids and oils”all failed. So the property MUST be that to work efficiently with the chromatography paper.

The alcohols are highly polar and hence are used in chromatography experiments. It is still less polar than water so doesn’t explain the effects we see of very positive and quick test results. Also wine and beer tested negative (albeit with the cheap tests). we can roughly conclude that the degree of polarity (as long as it is polar) isn’t at least much of an effect.

The tests are clearly measuring something. The most interesting results I think are those seen in the dual tests where 7Up Zero measured positive for Flu A but negative for Flu B and Sars Cov 2. This shows that some property or ingredient is selectively measuring positive. Like wise with both Yeast Solutions.

The hypothesis that I had going into the final experiment given that Coke tested negative and 7UP Zero tested positive was the difference between the two in that the “Zero Calorie”drinks contained amino acids in the form of Aspartame. My hunch was that the tests were measuring ,non selectively, amino acid content.

This was cut short in the final experiment which saw the Sugar based sodas test more positive than the “zero calorie”sodas. There is also basically no amino acids or protein in vodka. My thoughts were that maybe alcohols were giving a “false positive”. But actually not so sure that there isn’t some property or ingredient that isn’t being measured that tie these all together.

This lead to another correlation that all but the spirits contained sugar. Could it be that this is a component it is measuring? Not according the fact that just sugar water tested negative, however it did eventually test positive for Sars Cov 2 and both Flu’s, just after the alloted time window. It would certainly seem to be a thing according to mainstream science given this paper: Mucus contains powerful sugars that tame germs

The greatest result I think is the very consistent positive tests seen with Yeast Solution. You can be incredibly sure of the ingredients in there JUST yeast,sugar and water. For the more mature solutions (left to ferment for 1hr+) there is CO2 produced and hence slightly acidifies the mixture. CO2 content seemingly still returned negatives with beer and Orangina.

This mixture of single celled eukaryotic organisms, water and sugar do NOT contain antigens. It is impossible for these tests to ONLY be picking up SPECIFIC “Sars cov 2”or “Flu A/B”antigens. The consistent positives with this substance is a clear indicator that the tests CANNOT be used for the intended purpose as they are clearly registering commonly abundant properties or ingredients.

What EXACTLY are they measuring, I haven’t quite pinpointed it yet, although to falsify any of these tests (much alike the failed contagion studies) it is not incumbent to provide an alternate theory to falsify the original.

Moving forward onto PCR controls I certainly think that Yeast solution would be a great Control to test as it certainly is said to contain “RNA”. I would also say that sodas and alcohols would be interesting just to have a look given that dye “binding”is a similar theme across all of these assays.

All of the content that is put out on this Substack is going to be for free. If you feel so inclined to donate or Sign up for a Paid Subscription that is very much appreciated. It will keep me writing, putting out content and continuing the largest Control Studies Project falsifying Virology.