Americans have common sense, so they can understand when they’re being played (for example, when politicians place Americans under house arrest and then ignore their own rules to party and travel). And they know that there is no way on God’s green earth that decrepit, demented, corrupt, and terminally stupid Joe Biden fairly won this election. This post assembles various election anomalies that don’t pass the smell test.
J.B. Shurk, who frequently publishes at American Thinker, wrote a knock-out article for The Federalist about Joe Biden’s magical performance in the election. You should read the whole article, but here are four things that don’t pass the smell test:
1. Biden allegedly got 80 million votes, which is more than Obama received at his peak, in 2008 – and Biden did this despite losing minority voters to Donald Trump and trailing Trump in voter enthusiasm.
2. Biden broke 60 years of precedent by winning nationally despite losing prodigiously in bellwether states and counties. The last time this happened was when the mafia got out the vote for John F. Kennedy in 1960.
3. Trump had extraordinary coattails, so much so that even the New York Times admitted that the “Democrats Suffered Crushing Down-Ballot Losses Across America.” Think about that: Biden had no coattails and no enthusiasm, yet he allegedly won a record number of votes. Smells fetid to me.
4. Biden barely made it through the primaries, while Trump soared, with Trump’s performance being a historically sure sign of voter enthusiasm and probable victory – yet Biden, again, allegedly scored an equally historically strong victory.
At The Spectator, Patrick Basham, a professional pollster, also felt that Biden’s alleged win cannot pass the smell test. Again, this is a summary, so you should read the original article:
5. Trump exceeded his original vote count by the largest margin for any incumbent in American history. He got 10 million more votes than before; by contrast, Obama, in 2012, got 3.5 million fewer votes than in 2008.
6. Trump’s support among blacks grew by 50%, while Biden’s fell below the important 90%-mark that Democrat candidates need to secure victory.
7. In the Rust Belt, Biden lost black support everywhere except in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. In those cities, every single black person apparently voted for Biden.
8. While pollsters can and do manipulate polling outcomes, non-polling metrics (historical norms such as the economy, enthusiasm, etc.) have never been wrong – only we’re being told that this year was the exception.
9. The fact that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia simultaneously pretended to halt ballot counting while continuing to count is evidence of election fraud collusion.
10. Optical scanners were set to accept unverified, un-validated ballots.
11. The scanners were almost certainly programmed to fail to keep audit records.
12. In the contested states, the voting machines were alleged to have processed hundreds of thousands of ballots within a short time, which is a physical impossibility.
14. Dominion and ES&S voting machines were created to have back doors and specific functions to manipulate votes either at the machine or over the internet.
15. Fox News’s behavior on election night (refusing to call pro-Trump outcomes while prematurely calling Arizona for Biden) was so abnormal that Vegas oddsmakers instantly assumed that the fix was in.
17. There were anomalies in Virginia that suggested that computers were subtracting votes from Trump and, sometimes, giving them to Biden.
18. One analysis shows that voting machines in Michigan systematically removed votes from Trump and handed them to Biden. I saw a rebuttal (which I cannot locate now) that purported to debunk this but did so by using a different scale on the X-axis, which I found inherently suspicious.
19. Over 100,000 Pennsylvania absentee ballots were returned either a day after they were mailed out, on the day they were mailed out, or on the day before they were mailed out.
20. In all the contested areas, and at Dominion’s website, Democrats have been systematically failing to create or have destroyed all data that could be used to demonstrate fraud. This creates the legal presumption that the data do, in fact, show fraud.
On behalf of all Trump voters, I say to the Democrats who are trying to gaslight us: Don’t spit in my face and tell me it’s raining.
Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling
To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then.
I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.
First, consider some facts.
President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.
Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.
He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.
Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the electoral college after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still the subject of great suspicion.
Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.
We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not.
The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.
Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.
Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.
Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.
The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:
1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers
2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio
3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions
4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures
5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’
6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing
7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes
8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law
9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.
If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, maybe the weirdness lies in you.
When Tucker Carlson attacked Sidney Powell, I was unhappy with him. However, I said that I would still watch Tucker because he’s mostly smart, brave, and funny, qualities I like. Some people (politely) disagreed with me. Having seen Tucker’s Monday monologue, though, I am glad that I stuck to my guns by sticking to Tucker. Tucker excoriates the real fraud in the 2020 election, which was the way the media and Big Tech manipulated the system to destroy Trump.
It’s hard to explain to people who came of age during the Trump era how differently the establishment treated his presidency. Even when the media loathed presidents – as they did with Nixon and Reagan – they at least went through the motions of showing respect.
With Trump, the media’s hate-fest is unbounded.
They ignored the usual 100-day honeymoon. Instead, from the moment Trump was elected, media hacks began to exhaust their limited vocabulary of insults: Trump is Hitler. Trump is worse than Hitler. Trump is a Hitlerly copy of something worse than Hitler.
If they’re not making Hitler analogies, you have Anderson Cooper calling the President of the United States an “obese turtle on his back flailing in the hot sun.” Stay classy, Anderson! Where’s that sophisticated guy who got drunk and talked about his mother’s sex life on air?
At the end of the day, what the media have done for the past four years is inane, shallow, vulgar, and mean-spirited to the point of evil, but the steady drumbeat works.
Although it’s hard to remember, before Trump came along, the media would at least occasionally report rather objectively about actual news, both foreign and domestic. Nowadays, the news is blatantly slanted in whatever direction benefits Democrats.
Black Lives Matter riots are racial freedom fests while the people who protest being locked in their homes and losing their livelihoods are white nationalist haters. Nor do the media ever report Trump’s accomplishments. Instead, taking in the media is liking listening to the two meanest girls in high school gossip about someone they hate. Again, it’s inane, shallow, vulgar, and mean-spirited, but effective.
Most significantly, it’s impossible to explain the effect of big technology to young people who, having been raised within its omnipresent ambit, are as unaware of its power as fish are of the water in which they swim. When Google hides search results and Twitter and Facebook de-platform people for being “mean,” that’s normal to the young. To them, that’s the appropriate elevation of “safe” speech – and please, stop nattering about “free” speech, which all these young people know is a secret code for saying “hate speech of the type a Hitlerly Hitler would use.”
Incidentally, it’s also impossible to explain any of pre- and post-internet concepts about journalism and free speech to stalwart leftists. Because the media and Big Tech align perfectly with what our leftist (aka, Democrat or progressive) friends believe, they too view bias, censorship, and manipulated information as a fish does water: They are normal, and only conspiracy theorists would believe that the water is toxic and deadly.
Enter Tucker Carlson’s Monday night monologue, with its bracing dose of reality about the way in which the 2020 election was rigged. We conservatives have every reason to believe in shadow rigging, in the form of cemetery votes, faked ballots, and election machine manipulation. All of that, though, requires investigation and a lot of work to establish.
However, Tucker points out that what the media and Big Tech did in the 2020 election is in our faces, it’s devastating, and it’s very frightening for the future of a free America. No wonder Trump pinned Tucker’s monologue to the top of his Twitter page.
(I’m currently trying to point out with some frequency that Twitter never adds to posts from the Biden team any message that “this claim about an election victory is disputed” – although Biden’s claim is quite obviously disputed.)
The leftists are compliant, the politicians are bought and paid for, and we’re all that remains of an America that remembers the First Amendment. We better figure out what to do about this situation before our tech overlords ensure that we have no options left.
This, in a nutshell, is how Wall Street works: just two months after JPMorgan was fined a record $1 billion criminal monetary penalty (to make sure not a single banker would end up going to prison) for rigging the gold and silver markets, Reuters reported that JPM - having clearly "learned" the tools of thegold riggingtrade, has earned a record $1 billion in revenue so far in 2020 from trading, storing and financing precious metals, vastly outperforming rival banks.
The math simplified: JPM has spent $1 billion over the lifetime of its precious metals rigging, ensuring it has full indemnity from future manipulation claims, allowing allow it to make $1 billion in revenue in just one year. Truly a remarkable IRR, and proving yet again, that on Wall Street crime not only pays, but has a 1-+year payback period.
While the coronavirus has created a bonanza for investment banks dealing in gold, silver and other precious metals by triggering massive investor purchases and rupturing the normal workings of the market, JPMorgan has dominated, growing its share of the market according to Reuters.
Revenue generated by the largest US commercial bank by mid-November accounts for at least half of the $1.7 billion to $2 billion that consultancy McKinsey estimates the top 10 investment banks combined will make this year from precious metals, mostly gold.
And while Blythe Masters is now long gone (and oddly enough was never even once questioned for her involvement in JPM's massive gold manipulation scandal despite being in charge of JPM commodities during the peak of JPM's market rigging), JPMorgan's commodities division is on track to bring in more than $1.5 billion this year and could challenge Goldman Sachs for the title of top earner.
But surely after having been caught so many times rigging gold, JPMorgan is no longer manipulating the commodity market: after all all the regulators are watching it. Well, you decide: individual investment banks have rarely made more than $1 billion in commodities in recent years, and none has ever before earned more than around $600 million in precious metals in a single year, said George Kuznetsov at McKinsey CIB Insights. Yet for JPMorgan, it was child's play.
Why? Because as some have said, the $1 billion criminal manipulation penalty was really a bribe for the CFTC and SEC to look away next time.
Of course, in addition to manipulating the market, JPM also has unprecedented visibility into its every player. The bank sits at the heart of the global bullion market, and its activities span trading physical bars to derivatives, running vaults and clearing trades in London, the biggest trade hub.
Naturally, to avoid the spotlight, JPM had a ready narrative. As Reuters writes, "driving profit has been the clamour for gold and silver from investors, mainly in Europe and North America, worried the coronavirus pandemic and money-printing by central banks could devalue other assets. These investors pushed gold prices to record highs above $2,000 an ounce earlier this year."
To this add profits earned on the Comex futures exchange in New York, where supply issues earlier this year made it more lucrative for those with access to physical gold to trade precious metals. Gold custodian banks - such as JPMorgan - took advantage of opportunities on Comex and helped clients do the same, in some cases bailing out major ETFs and anecdotally, even one rather prominent central bank.
According to Comex data, show JPMorgan’s clients accounted for one-third of all trade in gold bars registered with the exchange in October, and more than two fifths in June. Like other big banks, JPMorgan was able to get and ship metal cheaply and in large quantities when other, smaller traders could not, sources said.
The revenue windfall will likely fade as trading on Comex reverts to normal patterns, but high gold prices and interest from investors mean this business will remain profitable. “2020 is going to be an outlier year,” said Kuznetsov at McKinsey, who clearly did not consider that the manipulation will only accelerate from here.
LabCorp provides genetic tests which always name the father who is named in the legal document, not based on science.
This creates a massive liability for LabCorp, as the results are used in legal cases and for other means.
This liability alone is enough to significantly impact their future growth.
New competitors in the field are providing legitimate science based tests.
We have done deep forensic research into LabCorp (LH) specifically on their paternity tests. The conclusion is shocking; any mother who fills out a form naming John Doe as the father will be substantiated by a 'test' which is evidence in court. The bottom line, these tests are providing women the opportunity to name any male the genetic father of their child, which locks the 'dad' into paying child support. Failure to pay child support is the only known financial obligation that can land you in jail, in the United States. All of this, based on a test that doesn't name the dad genetically, in a statistically significant way.
The faulty tests
First of all, the tests provided are 'motherless' tests which means without the DNA sample of the mother. Without understanding anything about genetic science, it's logical to understand why you would need all 3 samples of DNA to provide a statistically significant result (mother, alleged father, and child).
So what are some documented examples where the tests have been proven in court to be faulty? This is perhaps the most interesting case refuting the LabCorp tests, of another doctor that actually fathered 75 children with artificial insemination:
But defense attorney David Axelson asked Stuhlmiller whether some genetic markers he did not test for might have excluded Jacobson, and whether if Jacobson had a twin it would have been impossible to distinguish between the two. Stuhlmiller acknowledged those two scenarios might be correct.And he agreed with Axelson that if one of Jacobson’s genetic markers were incorrectly analyzed it could create a problem.
Then there are the many cases where someone takes 9 different tests and gets 7 different results - how is that possible with solid science?
Another is the significant case of Andre Chreky, who had to sue and fight his way to prove himself not the father, and in the process discredit the LabCorp tests.
The Andre Chreky Case
Celebrity hairstylist Andre Chreky was sued by a woman claiming that he was the father of her child, and thus was liable to pay child support. Chreky knew he was right, because he was never with the woman, so he sued. After years and $800,000 spent, he finally won. The reason? Shoddy work:
In the case of Chreky, the judge ruled that LabCorp, one of the largest paternity labs in the country, had performed "shoddy" work. An employee testified that during his 10-hour shift, he issued an average of one paternity report every four minutes.Mislabeling, misinterpretation, and switched samples are not factored into the probabilities.
There are hundreds of other cases, most of which will never see a courtroom, as the demographic of the typical victim doesn't have the resources to stage a complex defense. In the courtroom, LabCorp results are seen as irrefutable evidence, unless challenged. Most would not dare challenge a piece of paper with the signature of a scientist on it. Our assumption is that they know best. But the facts state otherwise.
Specifically, plaintiff seeks the following relief and alleges the following claims against the specific defendants: (1) LabCorp: twenty-five million dollars for "paternity fraud, illegal random testing, and conspiracy"; (2) NYSUCS: ten million dollars for "paternity fraud, false arrest, conspiracy, omitting evidence from transcript, denial of justice, defamation of character, unsigned and unstamped dismissal for a DNA test for my son, and speedy trial";
Relationship Reports
To illustrate how obvious this is, LabCorp doesn't call these paternity tests, they call them 'relationship reports' - that's because whoever is named as the father in the document mothers fill out, is going to be 99.99% the father, according to the test. See this example:
Ask yourself, if this is a real DNA identification test, why is it called a 'relationship report' and not 'DNA test' - the answer is in the liability and insurance.
Insurance Policies
As you can imagine, LabCorp carries large insurance policies for liability on these tests. The premiums paid are in the millions but the potential liabilities are in the billions and/or are incalculable. Every case which was based on a LabCorp test would need to be revisited. Here is an example policy from a contract with Alameda County, CA:
There are a number of policies, with a $1,000,000 limit for each occurrence.
From LabCorp's own site, they claim to have performed more than 2 Million DNA tests for paternity. Simple math multiplication shows $2 Trillion in potential liability. Obviously that's a huge number, but it does show the gravity of the liability problem LabCorp faces. And they have charged as low as $25 per test (now they are charging individuals $210 per DNA test).
And that's not all.
When you get a LabCorp DNA test they keep your DNA in a database, to be used for potential third party uses down the road. Competitors like Ancestry.com and 23andMe have been sued and investigated by the FTC for this privacy violation practice. Many consumers don’t realize that their personal info may be shared with third-party companies (or used internally) and there have been complaints raised that the companies’ terms of service are not always clear about their unique policies in these matters.
Reports of inaccurate tests from unrelated sources
Based on our research, LabCorp is not the only provider of the faulty tests, there are even websites and user forums dedicated to this topic. Articles such as "Problems with Home DNA Testing" explain some of the issues we have mentioned in this article. We do not have evidence that LabCorp is maliciously providing fake tests as part of a criminal conspiracy - it may be human error, stupidity, or lack of testing standards. Perhaps LabCorp just didn't evolve with the changing times. For example, Abbott Labs (ABT) was able to deliver a cheap and fast COVID-19 test, beating LabCorp in a market where they traditionally dominate. Reports on local news such as this ABC10 talk about 'heartbreaking' results of faulty tests:
The family is suing the two companies involved in the original 2001 DNA test, Bio-Synthesis, Inc. and DNA Testing Centre. In court filings, the family alleges the two companies that took their DNA samples and analyzed them were "negligent in obtaining, labeling, handling, testing, and reporting tests results."
So this clearly is a pattern in the DNA testing industry. Perhaps this science is just too new to be trusted? But even if that is the case, what is the liability for companies like LabCorp that may need to revisit thousands of tests done for court cases in the past?
The law and regulation
What is the law surrounding this issue? The short answer is there is none.
Scientific Testing is regulated by the AABB, a private organization that charges members $270 per year. But who regulates the regulators? Like on Wall St. that is a problem. And genetics is far outside the scope of the scientific domain of AABB, an acronym that stands for American Association of Blood Banks. Collecting blood and testing for white blood cells is far different than genetic testing, a new science that was really only started circa 2000.
The Grandparent element
In most cases, grandparent tests are performed to determine paternity—whether or not the biological son of a tested individual is the biological father of a child—in situations where the possible father is deceased, incarcerated, unwilling or otherwise unavailable to participate in a paternity test. The issue is that this weak genetic link is being abused by would be scammers. Here is the testimony of one case worker we interviewed about this petty scam:
"Mothers bring in an obituary from the news paper claiming the alleged father was deceased. We would often figure out the conception time period and find it was impossible for the person named to be the father."
Bait elderly recently lost their son into a defective test which will place the parents into an awkward and dangerous position
(1) Denial calling the female a fraudster
(2) After the test - This dynamic flips as the parents are “falsely told" that they cannot be excluded as Grandparents” and that the only way of seeing their “so called “grandchild “ is through this mother they just accused of fraud.
(3) Get Money
Why would anyone do this?
Reap the financial rewards both short and long term, such as:
Social Security from fake father (including disability, or other due benefits)
Estate from fake grandparents
Everything in between
SCIENCE: The simulated grandparentage test indicates that commercially available test batteries containing the 13 CODIS STR loci are typically sufficient to achieve acceptable levels of exclusionary power in grandparentage analyses when the mother of the child in question is tested. In contrast, an almost untenable number of genetic markers is required to achieve similar levels of confidence when the mother is not tested.
Conclusion: Only a test that involves the mother, father, and child is statistically significant to a sigma level as to determine with 99.999% probability parentage.
Orchid Cellmark
Then there is the unusual case of Orchid Cellmark. This was a DNA testing company that was acquired by LabCorp in 2011.
Many of the cases were performed for the Los Angeles Police Department. The alleged tampering has prompted the Los Angeles County public defender's office to begin reviewing all pending cases involving Cellmark.
"What [the employee] did was commit fraud," said Jennifer Friedman, a forensic science coordinator for the Los Angeles County public defender's office. "We now need to figure out ways ... that we and our experts can help to detect these types of problems that we never imagined would exist." Some of the 20 tests were performed for the FBI. Special Agent Ann Todd, a spokeswoman for the FBI lab at Quantico, Va., would not comment on the matter, and it could not be determined where those cases originated.
Why would LabCorp acquire a company with such a history? What's interesting in the SEC report, Orchid Cellmark says that claims of testing fraud do not have a material impact on their bottom line:
We may be held liable for any inaccuracies associated with our services, which may require us to defend ourselves in costly litigation.
We provide forensic, family relationship and agricultural testing services. Claims may be brought against us for incorrect identification of family relationships or other inaccuracies. Litigation of these claims in most cases is covered by our existing insurance policies. However, we could expend significant funds during any litigation proceeding brought against us and litigation can be a distraction to management. If a court were to require us to pay damages that are not covered by our existing insurance policies, the amount of such damages could significantly harm our financial condition, and even if covered, damages could exceed our insurance policy coverage limits. We currently maintain professional liability insurance with a maximum coverage limitation of $10 million. We have been named a defendant in a number of minor suits relating to our DNA testing services, including claims of incorrect results. None of the outcomes of these suits have had a material adverse effect on our business to date.
The point here is that this isn't just connecting the dots - when you begin to research this topic there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. And remember also that unless circumstances warrant it, most false fathers would not have the knowledge, resources, or understanding to take such a case to court (they may believe the test, that they are the father, or not understand how a test can be faked - people believe in Science and what they see on TV over facts). But as science advances, and more accurate DNA tests become widely used, the faulty LabCorp tests will have more chance of being exposed. Once lawsuits and complaints reach a critical mass, that's when the stock is going to drop.
Institutional ownership of LabCorp is high, here is the breakdown according to NASDAQ.com:
According to retail broker-dealer https://www.levelx.com, the average trading volume is about 800,000 shares a day. The stock has moved up recently as a COVID-19 positive play, but we don't see that at all. Other Seeking Alpha authors agree - this is a head fake.
Paternity tests are not LabCorp's core business, they are a testing provider from things ranging from common blood work, to pregnancy related testing, and hundreds of other things (literally). But if the paternity tests were seen to be invalid in even a percentage of cases (such as 1% or 3%) that would mean thousands of lawsuits, case re-openings, and other factors which would create a ripple effect for their liability. This would have the psychological impact on the company and it's brand - if the paternity tests are inaccurate - what else is inaccurate?
Conclusion
LabCorp is a short. The only thing that is driving the test issues being exposed is awareness, and that doesn't happen overnight. In fact, it can take a long time. We aren't saying this is going to happen tomorrow or next week. But the liability is there waiting for one case to take it over the top. Once awareness of the issue reaches a critical mass, ultimately, it will be exposed. That may be a celebrity case such as the Hunter Biden paternity case, or another contested paternity situation.
We can't say how low it might go as it's impossible to accurately forecast how such liability might impact the company and/or how they may deal with it. Revlon (REV) looks like it's on it's way to zero. It is possible for a once blue chip company to fall from grace. Perhaps it's simply that firms like LabCorp failed to evolve to meet a new challenging environment. In any case, with LabCorp reaching highs recently, this is a great opportunity to short.
Additional Research
Assessing exclusionary power of a paternity test involving a pair of alleged grandparents
