Clarification of the Question ” How Reliable Is the Covid PCR Test”
From and Article out of India where they are asking the same question.
“Disease is rightly described as Dis-ease, meaning thereby a feeling of being unwell. Since an overwhelming majority of those who are counted as cases of COVID do not develop any dis-ease, it is therefore all about the result of a test called RT- PCR, a positive report implies infection by the virus.
With stakes high, the test ought to be fool proof. But what have caused doubts are the high number of false positives and false negatives thrown up by the tests. The sceptical layman is also asking how the test is deemed to be fool-proof when the coronavirus is so new, barely six months old, and when we know so little about it.
But such is our faith in the reliability of this test that no one barring a few seems to have subjected the test to a scientific scrutiny.
Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter in an article published last month in ‘offGuardian’have raised some valid concerns. OffGuardian as a journal has been mired in controversies, but the issues flagged are pertinent.
A test needs to be tested against a gold standard. In case of an infectious disease, the gold standard remains the demonstration of the microorganism (bacteria, virus or parasite as the case may be).
In case of RT PCR for COVID-19 the virus has so far not been demonstrated. How have we then relied so heavily on a test that has no validation of its reliability?
Over a century ago Robert Koch postulated that in a microbial infection the microbe must be present in every case of the disease. Microbe must be isolated from the patient with the disease and grown in pure culture. The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the microbe is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
With certain modifications these postulates have been the basis of defining a microbial disease and have so far withstood the test of time. In the present pandemic, with half a million deaths over six months, the disease is yet to pass muster Koch’s postulate.
The issue of a lack of a gold standard to validate the specificity (the test being specific to the disease and giving no false positives) and sensitivity (the test picking up all cases with virus and giving no negatives) has been raised by an Australian infectious diseases specialist, Sanjaya Senanayake.
Torsten Engelbrecht in the controversial paper has raised what appears to be a valid issue. “The PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.”
But if the virus has not been isolated so far, how on earth can we be sure about it. So far no one has claimed to have isolated the virus in purified form.”
…………….
So my understanding now by what is meant by “Purified Virus” is now boiled down to this one sentence.
A Microbe must be isolated from the patient with the disease and grown in pure culture. The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the microbe is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
Apparently no one has be able to do this as of yet . Thus there is no proof that this virus is the cause of a disease.
…………
And Further more there seems to be no proof that the small piece of RNA they are testing for actually comes from this virus. It may be cellular debris . It may be from another virus. Apparently there is nothing actually specific about this rna they are looking for. It has not been purified .
Realistically if 80% of those who are positive for this little strand of RNA do not get a disease does than not raise the question how do we know this strand is actually a piece of a virus which is actively causing disease in the other 20%.
This is complex stuff and I have very little background in this science ( other than a couple of microbiology courses that bored me to death 50 years ago 🙂
I have misinterpreted some of the findings in these studies . No one is saying they don’t have the genome of a virus…but they are saying no scientific proof exists that the virus causes this disease or that there is even a valid test to detect it’s presence , or that thegenome they identified is even a virus
I suppose what they are saying is that so far no scientist has been able to extract a pure virus from an infected patient and reproduce it in a petri dish culture in pure form and then “infect” a host with it.
Not even an animal host .
Don’t get me wrong…there is certainly an awful disease out there …only an idiot would dispute that but it seems that the cause of the disease is still not scientifically established and the test has so many flaws in it as to render it completely useless.
Maybe the RNA strand being tested for is insignificant / incidental and that’s why 80% are asymtomatic while the 20% have something else going on ( TB?)
I am sure many here with say…ah Fully …this is splitting hairs.
But to me it is everything.
The huge % of asymptomatic “cases” has to be a clue to look into this issue.
How can we just say…well most people are not affected by this pathogen but those who are get it really bad .
Looks like this Indian Author agrees.
………
Jharkhand is a small state (where I live) with a low disease load and an even lower mortality rate. Ever since the first case was detected in the state, the local newspapers publish the new cases and every single death in great details.
So far, there have been approximately two thousand and five hundred positive cases as I write. Of the positive cases that were detected on surveillance of healthy contacts, not one developed even moderate symptoms during their quarantine period. Similar has been the experience in neighbouring Bihar and Odissa. So much for the denominator in our arithmetic.
Now the numerator- the number of deaths. In Jharkhand, there have been fifteen deaths so far. The sole criterion for the label of Covid death has been a positive RT PCR test. No patient has so far died of Covid pneumonia. Each single death has been due to a condition that would have caused the fatality irrespective of the test report- Brain haemorrhage, Renal failure, Myocardial infarction, advanced tuberculosis and as farfetched conditions as head injury due to fall from roof, abdominal injury due to road accident and complications after a child birth.
All were counted as COVID death based on a report the positivity of which has not caused a single illness out of over two thousand healthy persons. Similar is the story in the neighbouring states.
No one, yes no one knows for sure how many out of the half a million deaths reported in the world have actually been due to the coronavirus, to the exclusion of those with an incidental positive (true or false) report.
Isn’t it a piquant arithmetical function? Neither the numerator nor the denominator is anywhere near correct and yet the entire world is paralysed with mortal fear.
Whole Article
“But if the virus has not been isolated so far, how on earth can we be sure about it.”
Because it has been isolated and cultured. I am not sure what poppycock you are reading, but Northstar gave you many, many examples of evidence that it has been isolated. Here are a few more.
https://www.icgeb.org/the-sars-cov-2-virus-has-been-isolated-and-the-full-genome-sequenced-at-icgeb-trieste-italy/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/coronavirus-covid-19-virus-isolate-canada-scientists-mutations-strains-a9399226.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html
https://mra.asm.org/content/9/11/e00169-20
https://www.complex.com/life/2020/03/researchers-canada-isolated-covid-19-virus
… and there are many more.
You are doing a great disserve to the readers here my spreading so much disinformation and lies. But hey, if you are having fun, keep at it. But at least stop saying that the sar-cov-2 virus doesn’t even exist. … and yes, if you end up being right, I will come back and apologize.
The Virus has NOT been “Isolated” according to the original authors.
The term Isolated is being used incorrectly in their view and if you think you know more about this than they then you need to
Show me your research to prove they are wrong about what they are saying here .
…………………………………
“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.
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 “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).
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.
And a little more clarification on the “purification” issue
……….
We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] 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.”[3]
And that’s 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:
I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]
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 “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2.
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.
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’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.
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.
( goes on to demonstrate where they have failed to cut the muster …but you get the point)
Great article from India. I wish we had at least one media source that would publish serious journalism like that. It would go a long way towards ending this pointless lockdown by forcing the government to actually justify their emergency orders like they’re supposed to.
One thing I would add to this question of virus identification is that there seems to be a lot of positive test results but there doesn’t seem to be much disease here in Toronto. After 4 months of lockdown I don’t know of a single person who has actually been sick with this virus! This of course is the whole point of the doctor from Jharkhand also. Where’s the threat to public health from this virus if the majority of cases have no sickness?
If the tests are confusing parts of the other more benign corona viruses with Covid-19 that would explain what must be a widespread observation among many other people living here in Toronto by now that the so-called epidemic isn’t real at all because it’s being measured by an inaccurate test and not by clinical diagnosis of actual sickness. In short, we have an epidemic of positive test results not an epidemic of a real disease.
wow TimH
THAT last statement is exactly spot on !
have to repeat it
“In short, we have an epidemic of positive test results not an epidemic of a real disease.”
I am in Dufferin County ( originally a Torontonian) …we must wear masks in all commercial establishments …we have 1 asymptomatic case every other day an no present hospitalizations…we did have a terrible outbreak in a LT care home earlier. So yes there is a disease ….but very little of anything out in the community.
Thats for that quip
🙂
How ironic. I’m originally from Grey County, around Owen Sound, and now I’m in Toronto.
Ha
I recognize good old country logic when I see it Tim 🙂
I practice in Shelburne
Also… isn’t this why the WHO wants more testing? Only testing results will produce justification for government action. Clinical diagnosis of symptoms won’t because there is very little of that anywhere. And the mask bylaws… another way to produce the appearance of a disease without anyone actually being sick. What we may be seeing is seasonal colds and flu presented as Covid-19 because that’s all they’re looking for now and testing for.
It is extremely difficult to know based on one’s own experience of not knowing many sick people. Let’s assume (for argument’s sake) sampling error is not a problem here. Assume that one sees a large and representative sample of the population.
The apparent absence or paucity of disease in one’s experience could mean that infection is rare (symptomatic or asymptomatic) and would have been rare in any case.
It could mean that infection and severe disease would have been a bad problem except for the measures that were instituted. It could mean any number of intermediate possibilities. For example, if not for instituted measures infection would have been fairly common and bad disease, including for the otherwise young and healthy, not common but shockingly enough common that some people would have known a case.
Those are some of the discussions for synchronous possibilities. What about passage of time?
We do not know what will happen or what would have happened with the different possibilities. It is impossible to know yet. Not only do we not know what proportion of this or that population have antibodies, or what having those antibodies really means right now, we don’t know what having those antibodies now will mean next December or in 4 Decembers. Does an immune response now, from perhaps an asymptomatic infection, protect in the future? Sorry to be negative, but this is said to be a nasty bug, so nasty possibilities might also be considered. Does having immunity now mean subsequent exposure predisposes subpopulations to autoimmune diseases or malignancies? Does it mean exposure to the bug, especially different strains means especially nasty infections the 2nd time around in occasional people (through ADE or some other mechanism)? Does one run the risk of getting extremely sick from reexposure to the bug or bug variant (vaccine) (ADE or some other mechanism)?
Are there autoimmune or other sequellae from apparently asymptomatic infections now? (There certainly are claims of bad looking lungs in seemingly asymptomatic patients now–does pulmonary function worsen in function?).
How long does immunity (from, for example, an asymptomatic infection) last? Is it merely transient or does one mount a hearty and healthy response to re-exposure in Oct., 2022?
Are there other quirky longterm effects of this allegedly quirky bug on the immune system in occasional people, even apparently asymptomatic ones?
I could come up with other hypothetical — or imaginary if you prefer — examples. I do not know. I do not know the area. Also, I have not been to the future, to my definite knowledge.