Lisbon Court of Appeal rules against PCR tests

This is somewhat old news, but I failed to report it here:

The PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, said the Lisbon Court of Appeal.

This is the ruling of the court. The news has been reported also by the Italian National Order of Biologists.

The ruling cites two main papers:

This is not news. Lots of scientists and doctors around the world know about the problems with mass PCR testing.

Recently, 22 scientists published an external peer review of the publication entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020), which formed the basis for worldwide mass PCR testing. The scientists have highlighted 10 major flaws in the original paper.

Other resources about PCR can be found on this site.

These two articles, however, remain a good start:

And remember: PCRs are not a diagnostic tool.

4 different factors contributing to poor PCR results for Covid-19

Mass PCR testing is creating a casedemic, that is, a pandemic of allegedly Covid-positive people, the overwhelming majority of which isn’t actually ill.

There are four main factors contributing to poor performance of PCR testing:

1. Low prevalence of disease. This is the case in the UK and most of Europe. «When virus levels in the population are very low, the chances of a test accurately detecting Covid-19 could be even less than 50 per cent»

2. High cycle threshold. The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious. This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are. Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, and yet most Covid-19 tests have a CT of 40, with some with a CT as high as 47, and just few with a CT of 37. In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles. This was observed and published about already in May: Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples.

3. Cross T-cell immunity. There’s mounting evidence of cross T-cell immunity for coronaviruses, meaning that even exposure to common cold viruses (these, too, are coronaviruses) trains the immune system to respond to more dangerous coronaviruses (SARS 1 and 2, MERS). See, amongst others:

4. Lack of specific RNA sequences required by testing. There is no guidance providing details on the specific RNA sequences required by testing, a threshold for the test result and the need for confirmatory testing. It is therefore not clear what constitutes a positive result.

All this is creating a wave of cases, which in most part are people who are not actually sick. The pandemic seems to be over, and it also seems that many don’t want it to be.

This is clear from WHO guidance on what constitutes a positive case, which are pretty much followed in most of the western world:

  • A suspect case has clinical symptoms of respiratory disease, perhaps with other associated presentations. 
  • probable case is a suspect case for whom laboratory testing was inconclusive or not possible. 
  • confirmed case is “A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.” 

Notice how suspect and probable rely on a broader clinical picture, whereas the confirmed relies solely on the PCR test, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. This is very bad, since asymptomatic people are by and large not actually ill. This is why:

The one thing historically people need to realise [is] that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.

Dr ANthony Fauci

The utter unreliability of PCR testing

Excerpt of a SARS-CoV-2 PCR KIT Data Sheet

I’ve written already on why there is abundant reason not to trust PCRs for diagnosis of the pandemic status of SARS-CoV-2. I’ve added that over-reliance on these methods can easily lead to psuedo-epidemics.

This time I want to present you with other factual sources on PCR.

First, the picture above shows you part of a data sheet of a PCR kit for SARS-CoV-2. Notice the highlights:

  • the test can suffer interference from a host of other common seasonal viruses
  • the test should not be used as a sole evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment

Second, article in the British Medical Journal clearly states:

RT-PCR tests can detect viral SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the upper respiratory tract for a mean of 17 days; however, detection of viral RNA does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.

Third, the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine’s article clearly explains that testing positive to PCR does not equate to infection:

A PCR test might find the virus it was looking for. This results in a PCR positive, but a crucial question remains: is this virus active, i.e. infectious, or virulent? The PCR alone cannot answer this question. The CEBM explains why culturing the virus is needed to answer this question:

“In viral culture, viruses are injected in the laboratory cell lines to see if they cause cell damage and death, thus releasing a whole set of new viruses that can go on to infect other cells.”

When is Covid, Covid?  - More on the farce of PCR testing

there is no guidance providing details on the specific RNA sequences required by testing, a threshold for the test result and the need for confirmatory testing. It is therefore not clear to us what constitutes a positive result
— Read on

Covid19 PCR testing is poor

PCR tests are picking up rubbish. Literally. They are picking up “dead virus” so to speak, that is, incomplete viral genome that doesn’t make anybody sick.

Some links about this:

  • Clinical, immunological and virological characterization of COVID-19 patients that test re-positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Among 619 discharged COVID-19 cases, 87 re-tested as SARS-CoV-2 positive in circumstances of social isolation. […] No infectious strain could be obtained by culture and no full-length viral genomes could be sequenced from re-positive cases.
  • Coronavirus cases are mounting but deaths remain stable. Why? Evidence is mounting that a good proportion of ‘new’ mild cases and people re-testing positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with.
  • Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found. […] In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.
  • Warum alle falsch lagen (English translation: Why everyone was wrong). Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]. That’s exactly what happened, when there was the global news, even shared by the WHO, that 200 Koreans who already went through Covid-19 were infected a second time and that there was therefore probably no immunity against this virus. The explanation of what really happened and an apology came only later, when it was clear that the immune Koreans were perfectly healthy and only had a short battle with the virus. The crux was that the virus debris registered with the overly sensitive test and therefore came back as “positive”. It is likely that a large number of the daily reported infection numbers are purely due to viral debris. The PCR test with its extreme sensitivity was initially perfect to find out where the virus could be. But this test can not identify whether the virus is still alive, i.e. still infectous.

False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs – The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
— Read on

[ITA] Lettera per contestare tampone obbligatorio per erogazione prestazione sanitaria

Recentemente mi sono imbattuto per la prima volta nella richiesta di tampone PCR obbligatorio pena la mancata erogazione di prestazione sanitaria.

Ho contestato la cosa via PEC. Ecco il testo (generalizzato per evitare di riportare informazioni private):

Qualche giorno fa mi sono sottoposto a una visita OMISSIS presso il vostro OMISSIS, e mi è stato detto che è il caso [di fare l’intervento]. In allegato la prescrizione.

Essendo rientrato in Italia di recente dopo 12 anni all’estero, ho appreso con sorpresa che mi viene richiesto un tampone molecolare SARS-CoV-2 come prerequisito obbligatorio all’intervento. 

  • La procedura normalmente prevederebbe il consenso da parte del paziente; ma nel caso presente, la prestazione sanitaria (intervento di cui sopra) è offerta a condizione che si effettui un tampone molecolare, rendendo difatti quest’ultimo un trattamento sanitario obbligatorio. Dovessi infatti rifiutarmi (come ho provato), mi viene negata la prestazione sanitaria
  • La rilevazione di RNA virale per mezzo di PCR non equivale a infettività [19]
  • Il workflow diagnostico a mezzo RT-PCR per SARS-CoV-2 [1] è stato contestato da più parti. Recentemente una revisione esterna è stata presentata, insieme a una retraction letter presentata direttamente a Eurosurveillance. [2]
  • OMS ha recentemente riconosciuto “an elevated risk for false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR reagents on open systems” [3]
  • A riprova degli ultimi due punti e principalmente sulla base di due pubblicazioni [4, 5], la Corte d’appello di Lisbona ha riconosciuto che i test PCR non sono adatti a stabilire oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio che la positività equivale a infezione da SARS-CoV-2 [6, 20] – e con quella sentenza vennero annullate una serie di quarantene di persone asintomatiche
  • La procedura è invasiva
  • La procedura obbligatoria su una persona sana lascia perplessi, specialmente alla luce del punto precedente. Nonostante sia stata forzata a “chiarire e ritrattare” spostandosi su un più vago “non si sa”, quanto affermato da Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove a giugno sembra esser rimasto vero: i dati non suggeriscono affatto che l’epidemia è causata principalmente da diffusione asintomatica.[7] Il che confermerebbe le aspettative di tutti, come anche Fauci stesso disse “in tutta la storia dei virus respiratori di qualsiasi tipo, la trasmissione asintomatica non è mai stata la causa di focolai”. Le pubblicazioni usate di solito [8,9,10,11,12,13] per giustificare la diffusione asintomatica sono tutte state contestate da diversi esperti. La stessa diffusione presintomatica sembra avere ruolo marginale [14,15]. Infine, pubblicazioni recenti suggeriscono esplicitamente che la diffusione asintomatica è minima se non addirittura inesistente [16,17,18].

Per tutte le ragioni di cui sopra, vi chiedo di esercitare la medicina in libertà e indipendenza di giudizio e di comportamento, e chiedo di non essere sottoposto obbligatoriamente e contro la mia volontà a un trattamento sanitario non propedeutico all’intervento in oggetto; allo stesso tempo di non essere arbitrariamente negato la prestazione medica in oggetto. 

Se, nonostante tutto, ciò non vi fosse possibile, devo chiedervi di mettere per iscritto: che il tampone molecolare viene prescritto obbligatoriamente sotto vostra totale responsabilità; che fornirete al sottoscritto i risultati completi, incluso il valore CT; e che, qualora il test dovesse risultare positivo, vi impegnerete a effettuare una coltura virale per confermare il risultato del tampone. 

Se sceglierete di negare tale dichiarazione scritta, tale negazione verrà presa come ammissione di negazione arbitraria di prestazione sanitaria.






















Virologist Drosten: what changed from 2014 to 2020?

2014: the [PCR] method is so sensitive that it can detect a single genetic molecule of this virus. For example, if such a pathogen scurrys over the nasal mucosa in a nurse for a day without falling ill or noticing anything else, then she is suddenly a Mers case. Where previously fatally ill people were reported, mild cases and people who are actually core healthy are now suddenly included in the reporting statistics.
— Read on

Very sensible. PCR testing is a bad idea for diagnostics. Yet, fast forward 6 years, and Drosten is responsible for the paper that formed the basis for the worldwide mass testing policy for Covid19.

What changed? Certainly not the science or the tests. After all, use of PCR has been widely criticised by many scientists (no, not on the MSM). And recently a damning review of the above paper appeared.

No live virus beyond day 9 of disease #SARSCoV2 #Covid19

No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness, despite persistently high viral loads, which were inferred from cycle threshold values.

Our study shows that despite evidence of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples, viable virus appears to be short-lived. Therefore, RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness.

Once again, I find myself sharing a paper that confirms the science prior to Covid19 propaganda. SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus and there was never a reason why this coronavirus should behave differently to others. To summarise the lies told during the pandemic

  1. People can be infectious for months. False (as reported above). PCR tests coming back positive do not mean people are infectious or even sick. PCR can only detect the presence of RNA, but it says nothing about the virus replicating or not. RNA material can be around for months after a person recovers. And it can also be found in immune people. Being immune does not mean the virus never enters your body, it means it does and it gets neutralised.
  2. Asymptomatic people are the major spreaders. False.
  3. Masks help stopping/slowing the spread. False.
  4. Lockdowns help stopping/slowing the spread. False.

AAPS considers the possibility of a 'casedemic'

Latest in a growing list of sceptics with regards to “a second wave of Covid” is the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which says:

Will the huge rollout of COVID tests help end the pandemic—or assure that it will never end?

We have had pseudo-epidemics before. In 2006, much of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center was shut down, and 1,000 employees were furloughed or quarantined, because whooping cough was thought to be spreading like wildfire based on 142 positive PCR tests.

The employees also had cultures taken, and a couple weeks later not a single one had a positive culture for the slow-growing bacteria, Bordetella pertussis. There had simply been an outbreak of some other ordinary respiratory disease, not the dreaded whooping cough. Gina Kolata wrote in The New York Times“Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”

It is not so easy to culture a virus, and cultures of SARS-CoV-2 are not routinely done. Unlike in previous epidemics (SARS-CoV-1, H1N1 influenza, Ebola, or Zika), World Health Organization (WHO) guidance has no requirement or recommendation for a confirmatory test in COVID-19.

There is surprisingly little information on the false positive rate of PCR tests for COVID. That all lab tests have false positives should not be controversial, but this idea “has been entirely rejected by governments and the medical establishment, writes Mike Hearn.

For all tests, the predictive value of a positive test depends on the prevalence of disease. If most of the persons tested are free of disease, a positive test may be more likely to be a false than a true positive. This could at least partially explain the reports of large numbers of asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2.

Failure to recognize the problem of false positives has consequences—such as possible quarantining of uninfected with infected individuals.

The dreaded “second wave” might be a surge of false positive tests that are inevitable in mass screenings of healthy persons.

If you get a positive PCR result, you might want to get a confirmatory test, for example antibodies, especially if you are not sick. Positive or not, you might want to be sure you have adequate levels of vitamin D and zinc, and access to a physician willing to prescribe early home treatment.

For more information:

“What Does a Positive PCR Test Mean?”

COVID-19 Statistics and Facts: Meaningful or a Means of Manipulation?

COVID-19 Diagnosis

« Older posts

© 2021 Diarium Neminis

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑