Subscribe
Notify of
guest
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike May
Mike May
1 month ago

I can’t help feeling that anyone who has COVID-19 would be more likely to fall on the panic-supporting-Cassandras side of the line and not find themselves here. I don’t have it, am pretty sure that, in spite of daily trips to Asda to pick up my newspaper, I haven’t had it nor am I going to contract it. My 79-year-old mother has just come through it with fairly minor symptoms (although she was hospitalised and prescribed antibiotics as a precaution) so I’m pretty sure my immune system would give it short shrift if it ever did attempt an invasion of my magnificent body.

Kevin Corbett
Kevin Corbett
1 month ago

The Daily Telegraph today [22-Apr-2020] reports that Public Health England (PHE) is using flawed Coronavirus tests on thousands of NHS patients / workers with no real capacity to roll out national testing. The Daily Telegraph also reports PHE is giving ‘discordant’ (+/-) results, running in-house testing like ‘home brewed’ beer, and creating differences between PHE ‘in-house’ versus commercially available tests.

The PCR test – used for initial hospital screening – is thought to detect what is assumed to be bits of Coronavirus ‘RNA’. Similarly the antibody test is assumed to detect Coronavirus ‘antibodies’ but in Britain proven to be unsuitable (Smythe et al, 6 April). Data sheets (e.g. Roche, 2020) rushed out under emergency conditions from the test manufacturers omit to show how their tests must be confirmed by comparison with purified infectious virus – the virologists’ way (‘gold standard’) for validating how their tests must perform accurately on patients/staff (White and Fenner,1986 p.655). A leak from a forthcoming scientific paper on these tests by public health scientists in the U.S. state of Georgia– embargoed until publication – says:

“There is no gold standard for COVID-19 since this specific virus has never been properly purified and visualized. Thus, the accuracies of the tests are unknown. The development of these test kits is contrary to the FDA’s guidance document.”

This extract – confirmed to us yesterday by the authors – reveals that U.S. scientists admit how these tests perform when testing patients/staff has never been properly standardised in relation to the gold standard of “purified virus”, so all positive and negative results are potentially “unknown” – thus, implying they are potentially inaccurate. The gold standard for any Coronavirus test is the best independent way to measure the test’s accuracy at truly detecting those patients with and without the virus (Griner et al 1981). Logically, as the US scientists imply, the standard has to be (not assumed RNA) but only “purified virus” confirmed by “purification” then “visualisation” using electron microscopy (White and Fenner,1986 p655).

This may help to explain why the PHE is now reporting ‘discordant results’, where some people test positive or negative, with or without symptoms as the definition of who is ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ is subjectively decided contrary to what PHE imply to the public. It further helps to explain today’s Daily Telegraph report showing people have been advised to return to work too early (false negatives), and vice-versa, people are similarly misadvised – to stay off work unnecessarily (false positives). Also, those testing PCR-positive (with or without Covid-19 antibodies) may well be inaccurate ‘false positives’ that never ever had the virus, and vice-versa – as the US scientists frankly admit, “the accuracies of the tests are unknown”. Coupled with these problems is the subjective way in which different definitions of how a positive PCR test is arrived at (Crowe 2020, Bustin and Nolan 2017).

This honest statement by US scientists also shows the global rush to judgment with the development of testing technology with the big brother nudge from official health authorities – like the U.S. Federal Drug Administration and our British counterpart, PHE – to roll out these tests under emergency instructions before the usual and proper scientific safeguards were ever met. The US scientists are clearly admitting that no purified infectious Coronavirus has ever been demonstrated to come from Coronavirus patients. The implication is that the Coronavirus RNA/antibodies assumed by PHE to be detected by their PCR tests may not be viral but could represent what scientists like Andrew Kaufman (Kaufman, 2020) suggest are exosomes or production artefacts of the manufacturing materials.

What is not publicly admitted by PHE, yet is hinted at in the Daily Telegraph report, is PHE’s failure to create testing capacity. This may be due to the public health changes following the earlier Lansley reforms which locally disaggregated centralised services like PHE and its associated NHS contract culture, now misapplied to test-kit purchasing and in-house test standardisation which is required on a UK-wide and not a local [‘home-brew’] scale similarly across both NHS and commercial providers. What is very clear is how our PHE experts seem much less transparent about these failures and the limitations of existing science unlike their US colleagues in the leaked report.

References
Bustin S Nolan T (2017) Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT‐qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research. European Journal of Clinical Investigation: 10 August 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12801

Crowe D (2020) The Infectious Myth – Simplifying RT-PCR. The Infectious Myth, April 21st. Available at: https://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/RT-PCR_Test_Issues.php

Griner PF, Mayewski RJ, Mushlin AI (1981) Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures. Annals of Internal Medicine 94:559-563.

Kaufman A (2020) Dr. Andrew Kaufman: Is COVID-19 an Exosome? Available at: https://hipegalaxy.com/covid19/dr-andrew-kaufman-is-covid-19-an-exosome/

Roche (2020) Covid-19 Factsheet. Cobas®-SARS-CoV-2. Fact Sheet. Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, California

Smyth C, Kennedy D, Kenber B (6 April 2020). “Britain has millions of coronavirus antibody tests, but they don’t work” (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-has-millions-of-coronavirus-antibody-tests-but-they-don-t-work-j7kb55g89 ). The Times. Retrieved 6 April 2020. “None of the antibody tests ordered by the government is good enough to use, the new testing chief has admitted. Professor John Newton said that tests ordered from China

White DO, Fenner FJ. (1986) Medical Virology. San Diego, Academic Press.

Celia Farber
1 month ago
Reply to  Kevin Corbett

Brilliant. Voice of sanity.

Svetlana Price
Svetlana Price
23 days ago
Reply to  Celia Farber

Thank you!

Richard1
Richard1
1 month ago
Reply to  Kevin Corbett

There was also a Chinese study Dr. GH Zhuang at al (2020) published in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology on March 5th, 2020. http://html.rhhz.net/zhlxbx/017.htm (in Chinese) – which apparently says “nearly half or even more” of patients testing positive for SARS-COV-2 were false positives.
(https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/15/has-covid-19-testing-made-the-problem-worse/ discusses the various problems that the CDC had with PCR testing in the US.)

Gizmo
Gizmo
19 days ago
Reply to  Kevin Corbett

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764954
Us Journal showing latteral immunoassay tests don’t detect the virus

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/opinion/editorial/serology-testing-for-covid-19-is-the-way-forward-but-we-could-face-a-long-wait/20207918.article?firstPass=false

Another journal telling of no isolation of Covid19 in the body. Also in the article, is the admission of testing kits being unable to distinguish between viruses.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial
6
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x