Is it true that these tests have been used erroneously to drive what is no longer a "PANDEMIC", but a CASEDEMIC?
Peruse the articles and videos below for the most current research, and DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.
By Michael Truex
Is the PCR a useful test? Can it find the sick people for us?
Dr. John Hoyt, Medical director at northwest pathology, was on KFSK recently, talking about the PCR test. I really appreciated Mr. Hoyt’s straightforward explanation of the test.
Have a listen for yourself, here (scroll down and select the KFSK program with Mr. Hoyt, he starts at 3:50):
Dr. Hoyt begins by explaining the process his lab uses, which (for their lab) usually involves 37 cycles, though the lab doing testing for PMC is using 45. He states that the virus is unique, and if you find it at all, it's coming from that virus. He also states: “You see the virus coming up at 18-20” cycles.
This is interesting, since it correlates perfectly to the graph shown in this study by the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and infectious Diseases:
This graph shows a rapid decline in the reliability of the PCR test above that number of cycles.
The key to stating it correctly is to avoid the term “false positive” and instead state:
“Specimens were not likely to culture a positive result (0% likely in fact) above 34 or 35 PCR cycles, even though the PCR indicated a positive.” This means that in lab conditions- i.e. conditions perfect for specimen growth (think of your high school science classes and the petri dish), these specimens had such low viral viability as to not be able to grow.
From my interpretation of the graph, and the words of Dr. Hoyt, we should be testing at 18-20 cycles, since that is where you usually see the virus with symptomatic cases. At this cycle threshold (Ct), we would see very few non-infectious positives. Public policy would be based on real, infective cases, instead of "case numbers".
There are now many analyses and scientific papers supporting this premise. The research group of French professor Didier Raoult has recently shown that at a cycle threshold (Ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a Ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a Ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a Ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture.
This study does a good job explaining some other details, and in fact points out that the PCR will detect other coronaviruses 1-3% of the time if only one probe is used. Dr. Hoyt’s lab uses 3, but how many are being used at PMC? See this summary of that study: https://swprs.org/the-trouble-with-pcr-tests/
Dr. Hoyt goes on:
12:18: “The idea in developing the assay was simply, if you’ve got it, then you know that you’re an infected person, how infected, or how infective, the assay has not been set up to determine that at all…. And to try to derive that from the work that was done to get emergency use authorization is extending the science… beyond what it can bear. “
13:13: “in terms of the probe itself… the chance of a… technical false positive is essentially zero, because that’s, the definition of the assay is, we’re looking for those specific sites of now created DNA… really different because it has this incredible specificity… so how does that translate to disease? That’s what Thermo Fisher, didn’t really, there was not time for them to do a actual clinical study, it’s really a technical study to prove whether you’ve got corona virus in this specimen… Does that translate to 'you are an infectious risk?' NO, they didn’t do that work. False positive, could you detect the virus and not be infected, absolutely…. “
Let's hear that one again:
"False positive, could you detect the virus and not be infected, absolutely…."
Wow. Thank you Dr. Hoyt. This articulate and expert witness was able to give us an accurate visual of the strengths and shortcomings of the PCR test.
It is superb for determining the presence of a short piece of RNA.
However, it cannot be used to determine infectivity, and therefore it is NOT the right tool to determine if someone is dangerous to the populace. Something more indicative of a real infection, such as actual symptoms, would make better sense.
Many of Alaska's new emergency policies are based on “case numbers.” A positive PCR test may indicate the presence of RNA material from SARS-CoV-2, but due to the above shortcomings, that presence does not result in an actual case of COVID-19 as much as 97% of the time.
So we are creating an emergency out of a DNA particle, and we are negatively impacting more people than necessary. To me, an “emergency” involves risk to human life, health, or happiness.
With that simple definition, the only emergency that has happened so far on Mitkof Island, is an emergency of psychological damage and lost happiness from lock downs, forced masking, forced quarantines, lost jobs and destroyed businesses. Public policies need to change to reflect this.
Jun 08, 21 03:23 AM
Vaccine injury - many doctors think it doesn't happen. They now consider seizures almost a rite of passage - but years ago they were rare, not common.
Jun 07, 21 11:10 PM
COVID-19 perspectives from countries around the world. Experts do disagree.
May 31, 21 02:09 PM
Public Health - our best & brightest? Are they saviours, or bunglers?
At the White Coat Summit 2 produced by America's Frontline Doctors, Dr. Urso speaks plainly about the drawbacks of using tests in the absence of symptoms:
by Kit Knightly at Off-Guardian.org, December 19, 2020
"Warnings concerning high CT value of tests are months too late…so why are they appearing now? The potential explanation is shockingly cynical…
"The World Health Organization released a guidance memo on December 14th, warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives.
"While this information is accurate, it has also been available for months, so we must ask: why are they reporting it now? Is it to make it appear the vaccine works?" Full article...
at Mercola.com, December 18, 2020
"We now know that PCR tests:
"1. Cannot distinguish between “live” viruses and inactive (noninfectious) viral particles and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool...
"2. Cannot confirm that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms as the test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens..." Full article
by John O'Sullivan, December 17, 2020
"In a statement released on December 14, 2020 the World Health Organization finally owned up to what 100,000’s of doctors and medical professionals have been saying for months: the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 is a hit and miss process with way too many false positives.
"This WHO-admitted “Problem” comes in the wake of international lawsuits exposing the incompetence and malfeasance of public health officials and policymakers for reliance on a diagnostic test not fit for purpose..."
NOT the "gold standard," then?
This article is a PDF download from Public Health England, October 2020. Twelve pages long with diagrams, it is very thorough. A sample:
"A low Ct (cycle threshold) indicates a high concentration of viral genetic material, which is typically associated with high risk of infectivity.
"A high Ct indicates a low concentration of viral genetic material which is typically associated with a lower risk of infectivity. In the context of an upper respiratory tract sample a high Ct may also represent scenarios where a higher risk of infection remains – for example, early infection, inadequately collected or degraded sample.
"A single Ct value in the absence of clinical context cannot be relied upon for decision making about a person’s infectivity." (What does THAT mean? That without a clinical exam in which COVID symptoms can be observed, the person should not be called infected.) See PDF