A study titled ‘Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China’ was published on 20 Nov 2020. The aim of the study carried out by the city government of Wuhan, was to ascertain the post lockdown status of the COVID-19 epidemic. The unintended consequence of the study, challenge the propangandated notion that all asymptomatic people who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, can spread and transmit the virus to others.
The study explored whether or not asymptomatic people with positive PCR test results were infectious and have transmitted the virus to others. The study screened 9,899,828 people age 6 years + for between 14th May to the 1st June 2020 in Wuhan. 92.9% of eligible people participated.
They found no new symptomatic cases, but 300 asymptomatic cases were identified. Following up with track and trace of 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases, found no positive tests amongst them.
107 people, out of 34,424 people who previously recovered from tested positive again. The study concluded SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.
The outcome of the study suggests that the likelihood of asymptomatic people infecting others is minuscule to none existent, BUT, and there are few buts to consider; The study took place after a very long lockdown, when COVID-19 epidemic was generally under control in China.
- Could this picture be different at times when transmission is high and newly infected people start as asymptomatic and become symptomatic within a week or 2?
- At which point on that timeline a person become infectious?
- And of course the huge huge elephant in the room is how reliable are PCR tests anyways?
A truthful answer to this question can and will change EVERYTHING! All the numeric data we are bombarded with on a daily basis rest almost solely on that PCR cornerstone. How many people are infected? how many have died within such time from a positive test? Compared to the numbers at the first wave? All of those are inform and justify measured imposed worldwide and all very problematic statements that tells us very little on the real state of this plandemic!
For example: How many people are infected now compared to the first wave? Firstly there was not much testing going on in the first wave and the so called ‘confirmed case’ were people presenting with flue like symptoms. Much shenanigans were later exposed on how cases were determined and counted including financial incentives offered to hospitals and clinicians to determine Covid 19 as the cause of death without any testing whatsoever while co-morbidities were clearly present and in many cases were the actual cause of death, not to mention according to some – the death by medicine which we now learn could be the real cause of many early deaths.
Now compare those conditions with the present situation where by unreliable tests are abundantly used to test huge number of people regardless of symptoms. Is it a surprise we get a big hoo-ha how this pandemic is like no other… and measures applied to stop it, are equally unfathomable in a pre 2020 world…
While the numbers game goes on and on pretty much unchallenged by main stream media in general, no one is talking about what percentage of those tested positive are asymptomatic, and may pose little to no threat of infecting others, if the study mentioned above is anything to go by… Wouldn’t we like to know?
But before looking into PCR tests in more detail, I encourage everyone to read the ‘Study’ report and explore the AltMetric gismo tight below – it refers to how the study was perceived and discussed.
AltMetric for this study
So what is PCR? how is it used? Are the test result accurate and definitive? If not, what margin of error are we talking about? And what does it ultimately mean for the people of planet lockdown?
What is a nucleic acid test
A nucleic acid test (NAT) is used to detect a particular nucleic acid sequence to detect and identify a particular species, or subspecies of an organism. It could be a virus or bacteria that acts as a pathogen in blood, tissue, urine, and more. NATs detect genetic materials (RNA or DNA) rather than antigens or antibodies. The detection of genetic materials May help to diagnose an early stage of a disease, since the detection of antigens and/or antibodies requires time for them to to appeare in the bloodstream. Since the amount of a certain genetic material is usually very small, many NATs include a step that amplifies the genetic material—that is, makes many copies of it. Such NATs are called nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is one method of amplification.
What is the PCR test and how accurate are the results?
The PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was invented by Kary Mullis a Nobel Prize laureate.
PCR is a method used to amplify a tiny fragment of DNA or RNA from an organism copying it a number of times by heating and cooling the sample until it can be detected and/or measured. A cycle thresholds amplification – the number of times repeating the process, is fundamental to the result one gets, as Kary Mullis explains below.
“With PCR test if you do it well enough, you can find anything in anybody” said Kary Mullis. In other words if a sample is amplified beyond a certain number of times everybody’s test will be positive!
I Found the following diagram in a document published by Public Health England titled “Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR – A guide for health protection teams”
“The cycle threshold (Ct) can be defined as the thermal cycle number at which the fluorescent signal exceeds that of the background and thus passes the threshold for positivity (Figure 1, page 5)…. The lower the Ct value the higher the quantity of viral genetic material in the sample (as an approximate proxy for viral load). Ct values obtained in this way are semi-quantitative and are able to distinguish between high and low viral load. A 3-point increase in Ct value is roughly equivalent to a 10-fold decrease in the quantity of viral genetic material.”
The number of cycles is of great importance – as seen in figure 1 anything beyond 28 cycles may give a positive results for any sample or test subject. So how many cycles are used and what fragments of the virus are being tested? This is the million dollar question!
A freedom of information request made to the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK in the Details of threshold values (CT) used for PCR swab testing for SARS-CoV-2 it also requested to know of
Another freedom of information request from the asked Public Health England amongst other things “Can you please approximate false positive and false negative rates for your PCR test? Does this vary with cycle threshold?”
The answer from 1st December 2020 included the following document: Impact of false-positives and false-negatives in the UK’s COVID-19 RT-PCR testing programme, it was published on 3rd June 2020:
- Under the heading “What is the UK operational false positive rate?” it states: “The UK operational false positive rate is unknown. There are no published studies on the operational false positive rate of any national COVID-19 testing programme.”
- Under the heading What is the UK operational false negative rate? it states “The UK operational false negative rate is unknown.”
Wow… Since the briefing paper was published by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies on the impact of false positives and false negatives in the United Kingdom’s COVID-19 RT-PCR) testing programme, And Despite finding that this very important information was unknown, here we are 6 months down the line – it is still unknown? Well I guess the logic is that if you don’t look – the problem does not exist!
Type of PCR Tests
There are many companies/organisations who manufacture PCR tests and each is looking to detect a different fragment of the virus genetic material: RdRP gene, ORF1ab, N gene, ORF8, N2, E, pp1ab and more with some companies not even specifying what they are testing at all. The Table below ( click the + ro open it ) published in the article : Assay Techniques and Test Development for COVID-19 Diagnosis, outlines a list of test manufactured by different companies, designed to detect different fragments of the virus RNA. and which countries approved it for use.
Who is licensed to conduct PCR tests
Who is licensed to conduct the test? How are those licensed regulated? Is there any standard they all follow and how open to abuse are those set ups? All are very important questions. In the UK there are hundreds of PCR test providers but no information on which type of PCR test they provide or how many PCR cycles they use in their tests.
Providers only have to declare that they meet the government’s minimum standards for providers of Test to Release for international travel or minimum standards for private sector providers of general COVID-19 testing (the Declaration). The government does not endorse or recommend any particular private test provider. Individuals UK gov site say – “should conduct their own research about available providers, the tests they supply and their locations.” Is there any mechanism or checks that all those providers indeed adhere to a given standard? Or are they only required to make the Declaration?
And as we on the topic of a standard of PCR testing the World Health Organisation put out a notice to IVD Users 2020/05 on Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
“Date: 13 January 2021
Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.
Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”
In another notice from the 18 January 2021
Description of the problem: Following the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants containing mutations, including SARS-CoV-2 VOC 202012/01, and SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2, WHO reminds users of IVDs to monitor detection rates for SARS-CoV-2 at their site. IVD users should routinely review test results to detect unexpected increases or decreases in test results, including positivity rate, target detection rate, invalid or unreturnable result rate, etc. These variations may be early indicators of impact on the safety, quality or performance of the IVD products. Certain mutations may increase the risk of delayed diagnosis (due to inconclusive or invalid results), and misdiagnosis.
Manufacturers of IVDs listed by WHO (through Emergency Use Listing) must proactively scan literature and other sources for any documented mutations that might impact the safety, quality or performance of their product. This should be incorporated as part of their post-market surveillance plan and will be supplemented by feedback reported by IVD users in the form of unexpected results, as well as other product problems and adverse events. All gathered information must be reviewed in a timely fashion, using risk management principles to determine any necessary actions.
Advice on action to be taken by IVD users:
IVD users should notify the IVD manufacturer in the following circumstances:
-
- Increased discrepancies in cycle threshold (Ct) values between different gene targets.
- Failure to detect specific gene targets, including those containing gene sequences that coincide with documented mutations.
- Misdiagnosis (for example, false negative).
Unlike what we would like to believe the science of molecular biology or virology is not perfect neat or definitive. It is messy with huge scope for incompetences, human errors and greed, all the way to outright intentional manipulation and a lot more. The tests we have are not accurate! at this point we have no clear information on the margin of errors. And on top of everything we also have the moving target of a cat and mouse game of mutating viruses…
Pingback: RaccoonMedicine | Dr. McCullough – The Heart Of The Matter