Which points to the answer that covid tests have false incredible false positives. For example check this table in this research paper from the NIH which analyzes the shortcomings of Covid-19 studies and says, "RT-PCR testing informs clinicians whether there is detectable virus present, but it cannot determine whether an individual is contagious. Infectivity in cell culture is the standard for determining whether a patient is infectious, but even this is a proxy for transmissibility. Currently, it is believed a Ct value below 24 is the threshold for being infectious." (Table 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310638/)
There's also this research paper which describes how PCR tests are to be read and also gives an analysis of other tests administered. Look at Table 1 which describes the methods of testing and claims 97% accuracy for PCR Tests, however... (httpss://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268832/table/T1/?report=objectonly) However in the paper says, "a sample is usually judged positive for COVID-19 based on a Ct value of 35." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268832/#!po=61.6667) ... "Furthermore, because the Ct value is inversely proportional to the amount of the target gene, there is also the disadvantage of a sample being interpreted as false negative in the early stages of COVID-19 infection without large amounts of virus multiplication, or depending on the accuracy of the swab." ... "A recent study from China reported over 50% false negative cases using rRT-PCR tests for COVID-19. However, considering the accuracy of rRT-PCR, these high false negative results may be due to problems with the Ct cut-off value"
So technically they're telling the truth. There is 97% accuracy of the virus but that's when it's already present and using a low cut off value. I need to continue research but this I am slowly beginning to conclude that It's not accurate at all.
This all being paired together is starting to make more sense.
Here is the results of an experiment in the 1900s where 1200 swine were hit with balls to induce this. 30% of them experienced this phenomenon. 3% never experienced this and 7 did with a greater than 80% chance. And these are swine weighing 44lbs. If they weighed more than 88lbs there was a significant dropoff in occurrence.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/circep.111.962712#
Read the section under Genetic Susceptibility and Variables Critical to the Induction of Ventricular Fibrillation.
I would assume since then we've been able to determine what specifically predisposes people to this and is what is being mentioned.