What does the test actually measure?

MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC - April 01, 2020

 Regarding the PCR tests [nucleic acid tests] and the diagnosis Dr. Drosten praised several times, we would like to refer to the following 2 sources, which both show how faulty the detection of SARS-CoV2 with the PCR method is, cf.

• Emily Feng, “Mystery In Wuhan: Recovered Coronavirus Patients Test Negative ... Then Positive”, NPR, March 27, 2020, https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/27/822407626/mystery-in-wuhan-recovered-coronavirus-patients-test-negative-then-positive

“In February, Wang Chen, a director at the state-run Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, estimated that the nucleic acid tests used in China were accurate at identifying positive cases of the coronavirus only 30%-50% of the time.”

We assume that this was in the Drosten/WHO test, also because there was no other test available at that time. In a publication of 23.1.2020, in which Dr. Drosten is co-author, the Chinese Academy of Medical Science is thanked for the genetic data provided, cf.

• Corman et al., “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.”, Euro Surveill. 2020Jan;25(3), 23.1.2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31992387

The 2nd source for the faulty PCR test is

• Li et al., “Stability Issues of RT-PCR Testing of SARS-CoV-2 for Hospitalized Patients Clinically Diagnosed with COVID-19.”, J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25786, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32219885

“In the first test for all patients, 168 cases were positive (27.5%), one was weakly positive (0.2%), 57 were dubious positive (9.3%), and 384 were negative (63.0%) (Figure 1A, Table 1). Among the 384 patients with initial negative results, the second test was performed. For these patients, the test results were positive in 48 cases (12.5%), dubiously positive in 27 patients (7.0%), negative in 280 patients (72.9%), and results were not available for 29 patients (7.6%).”

“In the patients confirmed as COVID-19, 17 patients have positive RT-PCR results for pharyngeal swab specimens at first, and their PCR results turned to be negative after treatment for several days. However, again several days later when the patient's symptoms improved, their PCR results returned to be positive. (Figure 1D, Table 4). Among them, one patient's RT-PCR result turned positive after two consecutive negative tests (Figure 1D, Table 4).”

Tables 3 and 4 of this paper show a colorful sequence of negative, positive and uncertain test results. It remains completely open, how one can speak of a proof at all on the basis of these results.

A PCR test alone is usually not sufficient and the test seems to be much less sensitive and specific than Dr. Drosten and the RKI propagated. In view of the high prevalence of corona viruses in humans and the high diversity of these viruses, it is necessary to further question what this test measures.

Translated and reblogged Version - Original here

Back to the main page of this Telegraph blog: Link

Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link

Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link

Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal