{"id":209510,"date":"2020-06-29T07:21:52","date_gmt":"2020-06-29T07:21:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=209510"},"modified":"2020-07-02T07:04:57","modified_gmt":"2020-07-02T07:04:57","slug":"covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=209510","title":{"rendered":"COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless"},"content":{"rendered":"

Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter — Off-Guardian June 27, 2020<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify \u201cpositive\u201d patients, whereby \u201cpositive\u201d is usually equated with \u201cinfected.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.<\/span><\/p>\n

Unfounded \u201cTest, test, test,\u2026\u201d mantra<\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/a>At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:<\/span><\/p>\n

We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters<\/a><\/strong><\/span> and the BBC<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal \u2014 one of the most important news magazines on German television\u2014 was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:<\/span><\/p>\n

Test, test, test\u2014that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.<\/span><\/p>\n

But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century<\/strong><\/span><\/a> said: <\/strong><\/span>\u201cWhere all think alike, no one thinks very much<\/strong><\/span>.\u201d <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.<\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.<\/span><\/p>\n

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn\u2019t<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lack of a valid gold standard<\/h2>\n

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness \u2014 strictly speaking their \u201csensitivity\u201d[1<\/a><\/strong><\/span>] and \u201cspecificity\u201d \u2014 by comparison with a \u201cgold standard,\u201d meaning the most accurate method available.<\/span><\/p>\n

As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview<\/strong><\/span><\/a> in an answer to the question \u201cHow accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?\u201d<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we\u2019ve already got blood cultures, that\u2019s our gold standard we\u2019ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don\u2019t have a gold standard test.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper \u201cInterpreting a COVID-19 test result<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a><\/em>, published recently in The British Medical Journal<\/em>, she writes that there is a \u201clack of such a clear-cut \u2018gold-standard\u2019 for COVID-19 testing.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, \u201cpragmatically\u201d COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, \u201cmay be the best available \u2018gold standard\u2019.\u201d<\/em> But this is not scientifically sound.<\/span><\/p>\n

Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas L\u00f6scher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2<\/a><\/strong><\/span>].<\/span><\/p>\n

And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis \u2014 contrary to Watson\u2019s statement \u2014 cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, \u201cexperts\u201d such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.<\/span><\/p>\n

That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis \u201cmay be the best available gold standard,\u201d if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn\u2019t be the best available\/possible gold standard. But she hasn\u2019t answered these questions yet \u2013 despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd<\/a><\/strong><\/span>: \u201cI will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

No proof for the RNA being of viral origin<\/h2>\n

Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation\/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.<\/span><\/p>\n

As textbooks (e.g., White\/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, particle purification \u2014 i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende \u2014 is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.<\/span><\/p>\n

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA \u2014 but it cannot determine where these particles came from<\/em>. That has to be determined beforehand.<\/span><\/p>\n

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.<\/span><\/p>\n

But not a single team could answer that question with \u201cyes\u201d \u2014 and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like \u201cNo, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification\u201d <\/em>(see below).<\/span><\/p>\n

We asked several study authors \u201cDo your electron micrographs show the purified virus?\u201d, they gave the following responses:<\/span><\/p>\n

Study 1:<\/strong> Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. \u201cEmergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health\u201d Nature Medicine<\/em>, March 2020<\/span>
\nReplying Author:<\/strong> Malik Peiris<\/span>
\nDate:<\/strong> May 12, 2020<\/span>
\nAnswer:<\/strong> \u201cThe image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Study 2:<\/strong> Myung-Guk Han et al. \u201cIdentification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19\u201d, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives<\/em>, February 2020<\/span>
\nReplying Author:<\/strong> Myung-Guk Han<\/span>
\nDate:<\/strong> May 6, 2020<\/span>
\nAnswer:<\/strong> \u201cWe could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Study 3:<\/strong> Wan Beom Park et al. \u201cVirus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea\u201d, Journal of Korean Medical Science<\/em>, February 24, 2020<\/span>
\nReplying Author:<\/strong> Wan Beom Park<\/span>
\nDate:<\/strong> March 19, 2020<\/span>
\nAnswer:<\/strong> \u201cWe did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Study 4:<\/strong> Na Zhu et al., \u201cA Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China\u201d, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine<\/em>, February 20, 2020<\/span>
\nReplying Author:<\/strong> Wenjie Tan<\/span>
\nDate:<\/strong> March 18, 2020<\/span>
\nAnswer:<\/strong> \u201c[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.<\/span><\/p>\n

That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term \u201cisolation\u201d in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term \u201cisolation\u201d is misused).<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.<\/span><\/p>\n

We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science<\/em> published an \u201cimpassioned plea\u2026to the younger generation\u201d<\/em> from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:<\/span><\/p>\n

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction [\u2026] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.\u201d[3<\/a><\/strong><\/span>]<\/span><\/p>\n

And that\u2019s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:<\/span><\/p>\n

I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.\u201d[4<\/strong><\/span><\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n

This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being \u201ccalibrated,\u201d belong to a specific virus \u2014 in this case SARS-CoV-2.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch\u2019s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.<\/span><\/p>\n

One example is a study published in Nature<\/em> on May 7<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.<\/span><\/p>\n

For instance, the alleged \u201cinfected\u201d laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms<\/strong> clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. And the slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies<\/strong>. And let\u2019s not forget: These experiments should have been done before<\/em> developing a test, which is not the case.<\/span><\/p>\n

Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2\/COVID-19 \u2014 the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekul\u00e9 (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas L\u00f6scher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charit\u00e9 Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) \u2014 could answer the following question I have sent them:<\/span><\/p>\n

If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can \u201cstress\u201d the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable<\/strong><\/span><\/a> \u2014 an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charit\u00e9 \u2013 the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany\u2019s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be \u201caccepted\u201d (not validated!<\/a><\/strong><\/span>) by the WHO worldwide \u2013 to answer questions on the topic.<\/span><\/p>\n

But we didn\u2019t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding our question \u201cHas the Charit\u00e9 convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,\u201d<\/em> the Charit\u00e9 concedes that they didn\u2019t use purified particles.<\/span><\/p>\n

And although they claim \u201cvirologists at the Charit\u00e9 are sure that they are testing for the virus,\u201d<\/em> in their paper (Corman et al<\/strong><\/span>.<\/a>) they state:<\/span><\/p>\n

RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn\u2019t even go through a proper peer review process<\/strong>, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls \u2014 although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.<\/span><\/p>\n

Irrational test results<\/h2>\n

It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, already in February the health authority in China\u2019s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test \u201cnegative,\u201d and then tested \u201cpositive\u201d again<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology<\/em> showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between \u201c<\/strong><\/span>negative<\/strong>\u201d, \u201cpositive\u201d and \u201cdubious<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from \u201cpositive\u201d to \u201cnegative\u201d back to \u201cpositive\u201d at least once, and up to five times in one patient<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are \u201conly 30 to 50 per cent accurate<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a><\/em>; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO\u2019s coronavirus response<\/a><\/strong><\/span> team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:<\/span><\/p>\n

It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the \u201cpositive\u201d people tested.<\/span><\/p>\n

This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).<\/span><\/p>\n

The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly \u201cpositive\u201d (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly \u201cnegative\u201d (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).<\/span><\/p>\n

With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches \u00c4rzteblatt<\/em> published an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.<\/span><\/p>\n

But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches \u00c4rzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have \u201ca shockingly low\u201d PPV.<\/span><\/p>\n

In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested \u201cpositive\u201d are not \u201cpositive\u201d at all<\/strong>. Yet \u201cthey are prescribed quarantine,\u201d as even the \u00c4rzteblatt notes critically.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a second scenario of the journal\u2019s article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the \u201cpositive\u201d tests are false \u201cpositives.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered \u201cpositive\u201d worldwide \u2014 supposing that the true \u201cpositives\u201d really have a viral infection \u2014 we would get almost 2 million false \u201cpositives.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called \u201cSARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests\u201d are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the \u201cCDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel<\/strong><\/span>\u201c<\/a> file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:<\/span><\/p>\n

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

And:<\/span><\/p>\n

This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

And the FDA admits that<\/a><\/strong><\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n

positive results [\u2026] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics<\/a><\/strong><\/span> and Creative Diagnostics[5<\/a><\/strong><\/span>].<\/span><\/p>\n

To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol \u2014 which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol \u2014 and distributed by Roche<\/a><\/strong><\/span> we can read:<\/span><\/p>\n

These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

And:<\/span><\/p>\n

For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the \u201cviral load\u201d?<\/h2>\n

There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, in the product descriptions<\/strong><\/span><\/a> of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are \u201cqualitative\u201d tests<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, contrary to the fact that the \u201cq\u201d in \u201cqPCR\u201d stands for \u201cquantitative.\u201d And if these tests are not \u201cquantitative\u201d tests, they don\u2019t show how many viral particles are in the body<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.<\/span><\/p>\n

That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called \u201cviral load<\/strong><\/span>,\u201d<\/a> i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. \u201cBut this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal,\u201d<\/em> as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is not only because the term \u201cviral load\u201d is deception. If you put the question \u201cwhat is viral load?\u201d at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They\u2019re surprised to learn it\u2019s actually RNA molecules.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is \u201cburdened\u201d with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out (which has not yet happened):<\/span><\/p>\n

You take, let\u2019s say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they\u2019re in. The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found. Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick \u2014 or are they fit as a fiddle?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charit\u00e9 to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. \u2014 the so-called \u201cDrosten PCR test\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/a> \u2014 is a quantitative test.<\/span><\/p>\n

But the Charit\u00e9 was not willing to answer this question \u201cyes\u201d. Instead, the Charit\u00e9 wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n

If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charit\u00e9 in most cases these are [\u2026] limited to qualitative detection.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the \u201cDrosten PCR test\u201d uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses<\/strong>, while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled \u201cSARS-CoV-2\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as \u201cpositive\u201d even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!<\/strong>) gives a \u201cpositive\u201d result<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

This means that a confirmed <\/strong>unspecific<\/strong><\/em> test result is officially sold as <\/strong>specific<\/strong><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

That change of algorithm increased the \u201ccase\u201d numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, TIB Molbiol<\/a><\/strong><\/span> and R-Biopharm<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

High Cq values make the test results even more meaningless<\/span><\/h4>\n

Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a \u201ccycle quantification\u201d (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the \u201cDrosten PCR test\u201d, even have a Cq of 45.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cCq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,\u201d<\/em> as it says in the MIQE guidelines<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

MIQE stands for \u201cMinimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments\u201d, a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.<\/span><\/p>\n

The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, agreed, when he stated<\/strong><\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR<\/em> which has been called \u201cthe bible of qPCR.\u201d<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that \u201cthe use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false \u201cpositive\u201d results).\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n