The current PCR Test (polymerise chain reaction) is not fit for purpose or is it?
Since the pandemic started the government has based all their policies on the PCR test known as the gold standard covid test.
However many scientist and Epidemiologist have continued to speak out regarding its effectiveness
“…..Unless we understand the operational false positive rate of the UK’s RT-PCR testing system we risk overestimating the COVID-19 incidence, the demand on track and trace, and the extent of asymptomatic infection.”
whats wrong with the test
Kary Mullis who invented the PCR test said himself the test is no good for the testing of viral infections, Mr Mullis died last year under suspicious circumstances
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.
So whats wrong with the test
- Too many false positives
- Cross infection at the point of collection (testing station)
- It picks up DNA and RCA and amplifies it over 40 times to magnify the strain which could be dormant or dead
- Results need to be analyzed in lab conditions with qualified staff
Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance confirmed the limitations of the RT PCR test when questioned by the House of Commons Scientific Committee on 2 November when he said this:
“PCR…..is very sensitive and picks up lots of things, even very small amounts of RNA. That is probably one of the reasons it picks up people who are not actually infectious but those with residual RNA from having a virus. In that sense it is a false positive in terms of infectiousness.
”Matt Hancock said on live radio the false positive rate was 1%
Dominic Raab said on Sky tv the false positive rate is 7%
they have also stated that they do not know the false positive rate
- 1% false positive rate
- 423,000 people get tested
- 36,000 test positive
- 4230 people are false positive
- 5% false positive rate
- 423,000 people get tested
- 36,000 test positive
- 21450 people are false positive
So draw your own conclusions on that one
A key element of the Government’s Covid testing infrastructure was the establishment of a number of Lighthouse labs to undertake the processing of PCR test samples at scale. These were established in the Summer at various locations across the UK. They include the facility at which the CU testing programme described above was carried out.
However, a number of reports have appeared in the press and media about issues arising in the Lighthouse labs. These have included concerns about the health and safety of employees due to lax practices, but also allegations concerning poor practices which may result in cross contamination of samples, again, potentially leading to misleading test results. Examples of these reports are:
In the face of such worrying reports, what assurances can DHSC give us that the Lighthouse labs are being run properly and that the kinds of practices alleged in the above reports are not going on at other sites?
Because of the extreme sensitivity of the PCR test, it does not take much imagination to see that failure to follow proper sample handling protocols could easily result in cross contamination which in turn could well contribute to inaccurate and misleading results.
Coronavirus: Tests ‘could be picking up dead virus
The test for coronavirus is too sensitive and can easily pick up dead DNA, you could still test positive after a number of weeks which leads to inflated numbers
A person shedding a large amount of active virus, and a person with leftover fragments from an infection that’s already been cleared, would receive the same – positive – test result.
But Prof Heneghan, the academic who spotted a quirk in how deaths were being recorded, which led Public Health England to reform its system, says evidence suggests coronavirus “infectivity appears to decline after about a week”.
He added that while it would not be possible to check every test to see whether there was active virus, the likelihood of false positive results could be reduced if scientists could work out where the cut-off point should be.
This could prevent people being given a positive result based on an old infection.
A letter has been sent to Matt Hancock by Richard Tice asking for the proof and details of the PCR test and he as also laid down a challange to him
Treble Test Challenge and confirmatory testing
4.1 Will you accept our proposal to treble test a sample of at least 1,000 people to validate the results from PCR and LFTs? If not, why not?
4.2 Will you agree that given the fundamental importance of the PCR test to the Government’s strategy, that you will now introduce a policy of double checking all positive test results (as Cambridge University
itself sensibly does). This should preferably be done with a different type of test, and if there is an inconsistency, then a third test can take place.
We believe the proposals in 4 above could fundamentally assist the Government with its strategy of reducing incidences of the virus thus getting the country back to normal much faster: they should therefore be adopted immediately.
We look forward to hearing from you in response to these matters as soon as possible and in any event by 4pm on 22 December 2020. We regard this matter as serious, urgent and in the strategic national interest.
Given the national importance of this matter, we are releasing a copy of this letter to the media.