The PCR test, if that's what was used as a "covid test" is a very poor test for a virus. It has a couple technical issues I won't get into here (unless desired) but the bottom line is, its prone to false positives (to the extreme).
Worse though, if she tested positive already (and had already contracted the virus), getting the shot would do her zero good and potentially a lot of harm. Putting such an attack on the immune system (what the "vaccine" does) when it is already under stress from the virus itself has to be a crime. I can't imagine any doctor would know so little about immunology that they would allow that.
If she had in fact already contracted the virus (it is more likely it was a false positive tbh) then her immune system had already taken care of the actual virus making her almost certainly immune to a future attack. Getting the vaccine in that case is a useless endeavor. As a nurse she should have known that.
I swear, they teach nothing about cell and molecular biology or even virology and immunology to pre-med students or M.D.s. The entire pre-med degree needs to be thrown out the window (I knew a ton of pre-med in my undergrad schooling, almost all of them idiots in real biology). We should make all pre-med get a real biology degree.
That rant aside, the PCR test is itself an absolutely awful test for a viral infection. That is not its intended purpose even in the best of circumstances. But when you cycle it up (as the WHO protocol suggests), because of how PCR works it is almost guaranteed to be a false positive. It is utterly useless as a viral test. The only logical conclusion one can make about it being used in this capacity is that someone wanted there to be a lot of (false) positive tests.
Let her know she should disregard all PCR tests, no matter what the outcome. An antibody test is more useful (though I'd have to see the protocol they are using to be sure about that).
Evidence suggests the protein used for the "vaccines" is a coat protein on the surface of the SARS-cov-2 virus. It is imo an awful technology for several reasons I have laid out in other places in detail, but there is no credible evidence to support the claim that it "has nothing to do with any coronavirus" that I have seen (and I have looked a lot). I welcome any evidence you wish to provide for that assertion and I can vet it.
I looked up the protocols used by a couple of different tests of a SARS-cov-2 lateral flow immunochromatographic assays. There is no way to know for certain if it is the same assay, but I will assume yes. They used PCR positive samples to verify the results, which makes it problematic, but it was a reasonably low PCR cycle so it could be worse.
The test results were not great. The average agreement was around 80%. That suggests around a one in five chance of disagreement between a low cycle PCR test and the lateral flow assays tested. No real statistical conclusions can be made from this, but I can guesstimate a one in twenty chance of being positive on both and not having the virus (assuming the PCR test is 25 cycles or less).
If PCR test taken is a higher cycle (per the WHO protocol) that would be closer to a one in five chance of a false positive for the lateral flow assay for both. Maybe one in ten. I trust the lateral flow assay more than the PCR for this purpose, but without a verification process other than PCR its really an unknown.
The PCR test, if that's what was used as a "covid test" is a very poor test for a virus. It has a couple technical issues I won't get into here (unless desired) but the bottom line is, its prone to false positives (to the extreme).
Worse though, if she tested positive already (and had already contracted the virus), getting the shot would do her zero good and potentially a lot of harm. Putting such an attack on the immune system (what the "vaccine" does) when it is already under stress from the virus itself has to be a crime. I can't imagine any doctor would know so little about immunology that they would allow that.
Stuff like this really pisses me off.
If she had in fact already contracted the virus (it is more likely it was a false positive tbh) then her immune system had already taken care of the actual virus making her almost certainly immune to a future attack. Getting the vaccine in that case is a useless endeavor. As a nurse she should have known that.
I swear, they teach nothing about cell and molecular biology or even virology and immunology to pre-med students or M.D.s. The entire pre-med degree needs to be thrown out the window (I knew a ton of pre-med in my undergrad schooling, almost all of them idiots in real biology). We should make all pre-med get a real biology degree.
That rant aside, the PCR test is itself an absolutely awful test for a viral infection. That is not its intended purpose even in the best of circumstances. But when you cycle it up (as the WHO protocol suggests), because of how PCR works it is almost guaranteed to be a false positive. It is utterly useless as a viral test. The only logical conclusion one can make about it being used in this capacity is that someone wanted there to be a lot of (false) positive tests.
Let her know she should disregard all PCR tests, no matter what the outcome. An antibody test is more useful (though I'd have to see the protocol they are using to be sure about that).
That because the injection has nothing to do with any coronavirus
Evidence suggests the protein used for the "vaccines" is a coat protein on the surface of the SARS-cov-2 virus. It is imo an awful technology for several reasons I have laid out in other places in detail, but there is no credible evidence to support the claim that it "has nothing to do with any coronavirus" that I have seen (and I have looked a lot). I welcome any evidence you wish to provide for that assertion and I can vet it.
I just noticed you said she tested positive on a lateral flow test. I'm going to try to find the protocol for that to see if it is meaningful.
I looked up the protocols used by a couple of different tests of a SARS-cov-2 lateral flow immunochromatographic assays. There is no way to know for certain if it is the same assay, but I will assume yes. They used PCR positive samples to verify the results, which makes it problematic, but it was a reasonably low PCR cycle so it could be worse.
The test results were not great. The average agreement was around 80%. That suggests around a one in five chance of disagreement between a low cycle PCR test and the lateral flow assays tested. No real statistical conclusions can be made from this, but I can guesstimate a one in twenty chance of being positive on both and not having the virus (assuming the PCR test is 25 cycles or less).
If PCR test taken is a higher cycle (per the WHO protocol) that would be closer to a one in five chance of a false positive for the lateral flow assay for both. Maybe one in ten. I trust the lateral flow assay more than the PCR for this purpose, but without a verification process other than PCR its really an unknown.