Ask Cosmos: How reliable are PCR tests?.PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 is far from % sensitive | The BMJ
Looking for:
Is pcr testing reliable -
Is that too much amplification? Genuinely sick people get a positive test after 6 cycles 64 amplifications because they have a high viral load. We are a group of senior medical doctors and health professionals who are concerned about the health impacts of the lockdowns used in response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in Victoria and across Australia.
We are also concerned about the lack of good information available to the general public and the misleading use of data. These factors have created an unwarranted state of fear in our community. Even with a low viral load sample, PCR tests duplicate the small amount of genetic material to be able to better detect infection. They noted the possibility of inaccuracy during batch mode testing, where multiple samples were being tested, and when cross-contamination was a potential risk for false positives.
The likelihood of false negatives and false positives in PCR testing is fairly low. While PCR may require more resources and time, the benefit of having an accurate way of detecting COVID infection is instrumental for learning how and where the virus spreads.
Not only do we learn more about it, but we can more quickly help individuals and communities isolate and quarantine to stop the spread.
We understand the importance of testing, and we were already developing COVID tests prior to the pandemic. Thank you for sharing superb informations. Your web-site is very cool. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for more articles. You, my friend, ROCK! Arve from Austria, all of whom testified before the German Corona Committee, explicitly points out that a positive test does not mean that an intact virus has been found.
The authors explain that what the PCR test actually measures is — and I quote:. Towards the end of the video, it describes that the PCR test provides false positives, which means nearly all the people who were declared to have died of covid did not die of covid, as they did not have covid.
They had a false positive from a test that was never designed to be used to test if a person had covid. Hmmmm…so the test is meaningless.
Yet we breathlessly observe the test numbers as reported by media outlets and websites like world o meter. This is a very popular website. I checked it many times. However, I had no idea that the number of cases is unknown as it relies on a test that does not work. Furthermore, the number of covid deaths is also greatly exaggerated as I cover in the article How the Covid 19 Mortality Rate Was Irresponsibly Exaggerated. There are a lot of very nice graphs on this website, like the one above.
The directive does not allow the counting of co-morbidities. Applied on April 16, , this directive was conducive to an immediate sharp increase in the number of deaths attributed to Covid One can tell by reading the documentation, or the Covid Test Fact Sheet that is given to those that are tested. Therefore, it is also likely that you may be placed in isolation to avoid spreading the virus to others. There is a very small chance that this test can give a positive result that is wrong a false positive result.
Your healthcare provider will work with you to determine how best to care for you based on the test results along with medical history, and your symptoms. This is not true, as has been covered already. Is this test FDA-approved or cleared? The PCR test standard was used for the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. However, this undermines all of the math in all of the tests discussed so far. How do we know the use of PCR testing at cycles was known by authorities to be fraudulent?
Because now that the vaccine program has been rolled out the vaccinated are only given PCR tests at a reasonable 28 cycles, while the unvaccinated continue to be subjected to the fraudulent cycle PCR testing. This of course deceptively insures that the unvaccinated continue to generate completely asymptomatic false positives, and can then be made to appear to be driving the spread of the illness. Meanwhile the vaccinated are much less likely to test positive given their testing is now, indefensible by any scientific measure, conducted at the lower 28 cycle threshold when compared to the unvaccinated conducted at cycles.
Yes, so that could explain any difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. So both this test, and all other tests, including the tests submitted by Pfizer and Moderna and others to obtain emergency use authorization are now invalid.
None of the math I went through makes any difference as the PCR tests were never legitimate. Covid is not the first time the PCR tests created a number of false positives. The following occurred back in For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications.
Nearly 1, health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection.
Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care. Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm. Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.
Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.
At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories. Kathryn Edwards, an infectious disease specialist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University. We are trying to figure out how to use methods that have been the purview of bench scientists.
So even though the PCR tests failed in the field rather than a controlled and sterile lab environment and created a faux mini pandemic, they were introduced and accepted to test covid, where they failed once again.
Curiously I found another article linked to the above article in the New York Times which carried ridiculous and false information about the PCR tests and proposed an even less accurate test be used.
During this pandemic, that has meant relying heavily on PCR testing, an extremely accurate but time- and labor-intensive method that requires samples to be processed at laboratories. As we have established, the PCR test may be time and labor intensive, but it is not accurate, much less extremely accurate.
But as the virus continues its rampage across the country and tests remain in short supply in many regions, researchers and public health experts have grown increasingly vocal about revising this long-held credo. This is amazing. It means that many people had no idea the PCR tests were incredibly inaccurate. Outside of rolling dice or tarrot cards, there is no test less accurate than a PCR test. Health System. It is a catastrophe.
Again this is another microbiologist who has no idea PCR tests are not effective tests. There is really no excuse for this ignorance by a person who works in the field. And these tests are still relatively scarce nationwide.
Government officials have pledged to astronomically scale up the number of point-of-care tests by fall, increasing by millions the weekly tally of tests conducted. The entire covid pandemic was driven by the faulty PCR test, and that generated the majority of its results as false positives. However, this is all based upon the belief in a test that never worked. A better option, Dr. Mina said, might be antigen testing, which identifies pieces of protein. Two such tests, made by BD and Quidel, have received emergency authorization from the F.
According to Dr. Angelova this test does not work for covid. And It was not broadly adopted. Daily testing? This shows the insanity of pandemic thinking. Furthermore, all of these topics might be of interest, but none of this ever happened. Concerns over accuracy bogged down the approval process for simple, speedy tests. That should not be difficult. Butler-Wu said. Katherine J. Wu is a reporter covering science and health.
She holds a Ph. Well, none of that did any good. This article is filled with false assumptions and nowhere does this reporter use her domain expertise to check on these assumptions. In addition to all of these problems, the CDC has the following problems in rolling out the tests.
The faulty coronavirus testing kits developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the early weeks of the pandemic were not only contaminated but had a basic design flaw, according to an internal review by the agency. Health officials had already acknowledged that the test kits were contaminated, but the internal report, whose findings were published in PLOS ONE on Wednesday, also documented a design error that caused false positives.
Comments
Post a Comment