Problems With PCR Testing For COVID-19

[Lisbon boy]

@blob69

¡Português Rules PCR Unreliable!



Do you know what came out of this @ivy @MatheusPN ?

In Correio dos Açores 20/11/20 - Conselho Superior de Magistratura desmente abertura de inquérito a juizas que confirmaram ilegalidade das quarentenas nos Açores

Lisbon Court of Appeal is of the opinion that quarantine in the Azores was “illegal detention”
Superior Council of the Judiciary denies the opening of an investigation to judges who confirmed the illegality of quarantines in the Azores
The Superior Council of the Judiciary denied yesterday in a statement that it opened an investigation to the judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés of the Lisbon Court of Appeal who appreciated an appeal by the Regional Health Authority (ARS) of the Azores on the mandatory confinement of four German tourists because of the pandemic.
Following this appeal, the Lisbon Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the lower court regarding a request for habeas corpus [immediate release] of four Germans confined in August to the island of São Miguel after one of them was diagnosed with covid -19.
According to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, the confinement imposed by the regional health authority on the 4 German tourists, was an “illegal detention” because the health authorities do not have “power or legitimacy to deprive anyone of their freedom”.
“In view of the Constitution and the Law, health authorities do not have the power or legitimacy to deprive anyone of their freedom - even if under the label of 'confinement', which effectively corresponds to detention - since such a decision can only be determined or validated by a judicial authority, that is, the exclusive competence, in view of the Law that still governs us, to order or validate such deprivation of liberty, is entrusted exclusively to an autonomous power, to the Judiciary ”, explains the judgment of the Court of Relationship
At the end of July, the Constitutional Court had considered the mandatory 14-day confinement that the Regional Government of the Azores imposed on anyone arriving in the autonomous region to be unconstitutional.
This decision was taken after, on the 16th of May, the Ponta Delgada Court granted a request for immediate release (“habeas corpus”) made by a national citizen against the imposition of quarantine in hotels.
At that time, the Regional Government had already decided to end mandatory hotel quarantines for all passengers arriving in the Region.
Council will analyze judgment
In a communiqué dated the 18th of this month and published on its website, the Superior Council of the Judiciary states that, “in view of the controversy that arose in relation to the content of the Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal”, of 11 November, “the same goes be analyzed by the CSM Plenary, which will take place on the 2nd of December ”.
According to the JN news, the magistrates "should not have taken sides - as they allegedly did - on aspects and divergences of the scientific world in relation to covid-19". The magistrates said that the RT-PCR tests to covid-19 have “a reliability that is shown, in terms of scientific evidence (and in this field, the judge will have to rely on the knowledge of the experts in the matter), more than debatable”.
Speaking to the newspaper Público, two experts stated that the magistrates read “completely wrong” scientific articles centered on RT-PCR tests and that it is “irresponsible” to question properly validated covid-19 diagnostic tools.
“PCR tests have a specificity and sensitivity greater than 95%. That is, in the overwhelming majority of cases they detect the virus that causes Covid-19, ”said Vasco Barreto, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Chronic Diseases (Cedoc) at the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa. .
One week after the four tourists arrived in the Azores, one of the tourists fell ill and ended up being diagnosed with the disease. The regional Health Authority forced the entire group to stay in the hotel room.

 

[Giraffe]

Retraction request letter to Eurosurveillance editorial board – CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT


Prof. Christian Drosten is member of the editorial board of the scientific journal that published his paper on the PCR test.

I quote my own post because the review report belongs to the retraction request letter.

.....

Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020 – CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT

SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER

The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.

4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.

In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

 

[blob69]

I quote my own post because the review report belongs to the retraction request letter.

.....

Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020 – CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT

SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER

The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.

4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.

In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

Brilliant, thank you! Is the original "Drosten test" still being used in Germany or elsewhere?

 

[Giraffe]

Brilliant, thank you! Is the original "Drosten test" still being used in Germany or elsewhere?

In short... I think, it is still widely used. Not so much in the Asia, but in other parts of the world.

....

The "Drosten test" is a DIY instruction.

The following is from the website of Charité (university hospital where Drosten works):


In Germany each laboratory can decide which test to use. They have two option: (1) use a commercially available test for which the manufacturer has obtained approval diagnostics or (2) create their own and perform the validation themselves.

"To do this, the laboratories either use established procedures that they have established themselves ("in-house tests") or commercial tests that the manufacturer has actually designed for research applications rather than diagnostics ("RUO products", Research Use Only)."

"Many diagnostic laboratories in Germany and around the world have used the Eurosurveillance publication [...] as a guide to be able to detect the new virus in the shortest possible time. Diagnostics companies have also developed various commercial products for PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 on the basis of this test protocol - and later also on the basis of protocols from other research groups. All regulatory steps required [...] were and are the responsibility of the diagnostic laboratories or companies."

link

....

I have mentioned it before... A parliamentarian in Berlin had asked a lot of questions regarding the PCR tests (which manufacturer, CT value, rate of positive tests for different labs...) and the answer he got was either, "We don't know" or "It's a business secret." -- Mike Yeadon has asked a lot of questions in the UK and got no answers. -- The authorities consiously avoid everything that reminds of science and professionality in order to obfuscate everything.

....

I think the question is: How do you validate the test?

 

[Giraffe]

False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs (thelancet.com)

RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%, but no single gold standard assay exists. New assays are verified across panels of material, confirmed as COVID-19 by multiple testing with other assays, together with a consistent clinical and radiological picture. These new assays are often tested under idealised conditions with hospital samples containing higher viral loads than those from asymptomatic individuals living in the community. As such, diagnostic or operational performance of swab tests in the real world might differ substantially from the analytical sensitivity and specificity.

Technical problems including contamination during sampling (eg, a swab accidentally touches a contaminated glove or surface), contamination by PCR amplicons, contamination of reagents, sample crosscontamination, and cross-reactions with other viruses or genetic material could also be responsible for falsepositive results.

This is still a very optimistic evaluation of the situation. Mike Yeadon described that the labs are now employing people who never earned their living doing lab work. There is no mechanism in place to control the quality of the labs.

 

[Giraffe]

DR TOM JEFFERSON: I fear this mania for mass Covid testing is a hugely expensive blunder | Daily Mail Online

The PCR verdict cannot tell these individuals whether they need to self-isolate or whether they might need treatment – the things that really matter to them and society.

In some cases, for example, viral RNA might be present in such very low quantities that an individual is not at all infectious and poses zero danger. In other cases, the swabs might pick up RNA which is so old it is completely dead, as people continue shedding material from the virus up to 80 days after the initial infection.

We cannot say for certain what proportion of the results are affected. Last Friday, however, an academic journal reported that almost a quarter (24 per cent) of infected staff and patients at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford were still testing positive for Covid-19 a full six weeks after the start of an illness that normally runs its course within 14 days.

If that were in any way representative, I’d have to conclude that the official coronavirus figures have been grossly overstated, with all the damage that entails.

Where appropriate we should carry out tests, but only in the context of symptoms, the date they first emerged, a history of recent contacts and any pre-existing medical conditions.

Human bodies are not machines, after all. We’re far more complex.

I believe that Britain’s new-found testing mania is a retreat from properly conducted clinical medicine as well as from common sense. And that we are witnessing a triumph of herd thinking – an expensive one at that.

 

[Giraffe]

Dr. Stefan Lanka PCR 2.0 - YouTube

This channel also contains videos about the PCR test: Biomedical and Biological Sciences - YouTube

 

[blob69]

Below are three videos on PCR tests by the fantastic dr. Sam Bailey from New Zealand. She presents the information very well and summarizes all the main problems with PCR tests. She coauthored the newest edition of Virus Mania, the best book by far on virology fraud that also deals with corona in detail.

 

[Peatness]

If someone has had a pcr test is it possible to stop your RNA being used for research?

 

[Peatness]

Protestors Storm CV-19 Testing Facility in Manchester, England​

View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/zwvTNvSrKnIb/

 

[Peatress]

The Covid testing swabs debacle

The ritualistic humiliation and pain was all part of the test of compliance and control

wherearethenumbers.substack.com

 

[Peatress]

Covid testing to be scaled up in England as winter pressure on NHS draws near

A new variant and waning immunity mean surveillance that had been wound down since pandemic will be increased

www.theguardian.com