The Tests: The Achilles Heel of the COVID-19 House of
Cards
Looking for more truth and getting
closer to the truth is the best antidote to fear.
By Dr. Pascal Sacré
Global
Research, June 06, 2020
Mondialisation.ca
Theme: Media Disinformation, Science and Medicine
“The tool is not the problem, it’s what we do with
it.”
– Tests which are not reliable!
– False negatives (real patients not detected).
– False positives (patients who are not positive)
– Tests that detect fragments of the virus and not the virus itself!
– Tests that don’t quantify the viral load, the most important thing…
– Test kits infected with the virus itself: you could catch it by getting
tested!
So, you’ve been tested? Negative?
Positive?
Maybe you’re like most people, eager to
find out if you’ve got it or better yet, prove that you’re immune to the VID
thing.
With this article, I don’t want to add a
layer of fear to the pandemic of panic spread by our dear media in recent
months.
Nevertheless, even if some people don’t
want to “know anything” and will do whatever they are told to do [1]:
E.g. Wear a mask everywhere all the
time, stay away from your family and friends, don’t dare to go out or take
public transport without your “armour and visor”, don’t dare to touch anything
without wearing gloves stuck to the skin as a result of sweating… Etc.
I think that looking for more truth and
getting closer to the truth is the best antidote to fear.
So, these tests! what are they
Introduction: Diagnosing COVID-19 disease
People confuse the disease with the
agent accused of causing it.
COVID-19 refers to the disease
characterized by “airway involvement” with a wide variety of symptom patterns
(see below).
It is caused by
a virus, SARS-CoV-2, of the coronavirus family [2], SARS for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.
Another coronavirus of this type,
SARS-CoV-1, had already occurred in 2003, less contagious but more dangerous
(in terms of mortality).
FIRST, On the one hand, you have a disease marked by
the existence of signs or symptoms [3]. [No be confused with the causative virus]
The diagnosis is clinical!
Major signs/symptoms :
1. Cough
2. Dyspnea (difficulty breathing)
3. Chest pain
4. Anosmia (loss of sense of smell)
5. Dysgeusia (taste abnormality) with no other apparent cause.
Minor signs/symptoms :
1. Fever
2. Muscle aches and pains
3. Fatigue
4. Rhinitis (cold)
5. Sore throat
6. Headaches
7. Anorexia (loss of appetite and weight loss)
8. Acute confusion
9. Acute confusion
10. Sudden fall without apparent cause
As you can see, it’s a bit of everything and anything.
A little fever and a troubled sense of
smell (which can be caused by a zinc deficiency) and hop, you’re clinically
suspect of COVID-19.
SECOND, On the other hand, you are diagnosed as having
the “causative virus”, SARS-CoV-2, linked to this clinical picture with possibly
(severe forms) a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) that can lead to
hospitalization or even admission to the intensive care unit.
The main
technique used around the world, in hospitals as well as by general
practitioners and/or mobile screening centres, to detect the presence of the
virus is called RT-PCR. This technique confirms the presence of
SARS-CoV-2 (a fragment actually), not the disease!
Tests for the diagnosis of the presence of SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus
1- RT-PCR
For Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction, invented in 1985 by the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry (1993) Kary Mullis.
It is a machine capable of detecting the
smallest amount of DNA or RNA (nucleic acids) present in the cell being
studied. It detects and then amplifies the detected material, much like a
photocopier-enhancer.
The material
detected is RNA in the case of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
The primers specific to the genetic
material of the virus under study, in this case SARS-CoV-2, are all that is
needed to detect the slightest trace of it in the cells collected.
A few definitions before going any
further:
–
The sensitivity of the test is the ease with which
the test identifies the target.
– The specificity of the test is the ability of the test to
identify the target and not another one.
The ideal test is both highly sensitive
(100%) and highly specific (100%).
Is RT-PCR highly sensitive and highly
specific? It depends.
– False negatives: RT-PCR comes back
negative for SARS-CoV-2 even though the patient is infected. The less sensitive
the test is, the more false negatives will occur.
– False positive: RT-PCR comes back positive for SARS-CoV-2 when the
patient is NOT infected. The less specific the test is, the more false
positives will occur.
Can you imagine the possible dramatic
consequences of such errors, in terms of contagion, contamination, improper
containment or epidemiological evaluation?
In the literature [4], the PCR technique
is called “rapid, sensitive and reproducible”.
For the WHO, our health institutes, most
of the media, everything is fine.
However, it’s not all that idyllic!
The first disappointment is that RT-PCR does not
detect the virus,
but a genetic trace (RNA) of the virus, which is not the same thing.
A positive RT-PCR test does not
necessarily indicate the presence of a complete virus. It is the complete,
intact virus that is the transmissible actor of COVID-19.
As the FDA [based on CDC] admits [5],
the detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR does not necessarily indicate an active
viral infection (with clinical syndrome)!
A second disappointment is that RT-PCR cannot quantify
the viral load since
it artificially amplifies (multiplies) the detected genetic material. It only
says whether the virus is present or not, and again, only traces of the virus,
not the whole virus.
Third disappointment, the technique is complex and has
many limitations!
Even more so in detecting RNA viruses as in the case of SARS-CoV-2.
“The interpretation of PCR results is difficult. Any PCR must be
performed on a good quality sample and adapted to the indication.
For some viral infections, a positive PCR is not synonymous with disease… The dialogue
between the clinician and the microbiologist is essential for a good diagnosis.
“(RMS, 2007, Vol 3).
In most cases, the cells studied come
from the upper respiratory tract, and are collected using a long cotton swab
inserted into the nasal cavity at a relatively deep level [6]. It is said that
to be effective, the procedure must be painful for the person being tested.
If the cells contain the smallest
nucleic fragment (RNA) of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, the theory is that it
will be detected by RT-PCR. But not that the patient is necessarily sick with
COVID-19!
In this article from the Swiss Medical
Journal of 2005 [7], we read that :
“For some infections, PCR
tests are considered as a reference method while for others, they are only an
aid to diagnosis. Contact with the laboratory performing the analysis is
important in order to interpret the PCR results correctly.”
For respiratory infections,
“Serology (blood test – see
below) remains the definitive proof of an infection that has caused an immune response
and is therefore still considered…as a reference test.”
For coronaviruses, culture is difficult
and detection by RT-PCR is the technique of choice.
But many steps are required to prime and
amplify the specific genetic material and it is a complex and very
sophisticated process with many opportunities for misinterpretation or
misrepresentation [8] :
Mishandling, miscalibrated or
contaminated equipment (from the person being tested, the laboratory technician
or the environment), misstorage or misdirection and the whole result can be
compromised.
PCR tests can be falsified when the
sample is contaminated with other strains, especially bacterial strains.
There is a
significant risk of false negatives, as reported on the Alternative Well-Being website
[9] :
1- The test is badly done
2- The virus is elsewhere (not in the
site where the sample is taken)
3- The tests have not been approved
4- The virus is already mutating
There is an
even higher risk of false positives, as pointed out by the independent journalist Pryska
Ducoeurjoly [10], based on the Swiss Medical Journal (8 April 2020) and the
French journal Prescrire [11].
2- Rapid antigenic test
A variant of PCR, the results of which
may take 24 to 48 hours to be known, is a faster antigenic test (results in 15
minutes), certified by the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products in
Belgium [12]. It allows the detection of antigens (viral proteins), again from
a nasopharyngeal swab.
However, it is much less specific!
In one study, only 50% of patients
confirmed positive by RT-PCR were detected by this antigenic test.
This test is not recommended by the WHO
for the detection of COVID-19 disease.
That says it all.
Tests for confirmation of viral infection and its
follow-up
1- Serological tests
These tests are based on a blood test
followed by an analysis in a specialized laboratory.
We look for the presence of antibodies
developed by the patient. This is used to find out whether the person has
actually been in contact with SARS-CoV-2 (IgM) and whether they have become
immune to it (IgG).
This is the test that many Belgians are
eagerly awaiting and which will be reserved in priority for care personnel.
2- ELISA tests
These special serological tests (dozens
of samples processed at one time) are carried out in university laboratories to
monitor the evolution of antibodies over time and to assess the type and
duration of immunity induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection.
What is the cost of these tests in Belgium?
1. For the molecular detection test
(PCR), the RIZIV reimburses 46.81 EUR.
2.For the antigen detection test, the RIZIV reimburses 16.72 EUR.
3. For the antibody detection test (serological test), the RIZIV reimburses
9,60 EUR.
These amounts include all costs related
to the test: sampling material, equipment, reagents, investment costs, quality
monitoring, personnel costs, supervision, protective material, transport costs,
etc.
There is no patient co-payment (no
co-payment) [13].
Infected specimen collection kits!
As if that were not enough, we learn
that batches of detection kits are infected with SARS-CoV-2!
Notably in the USA [14], Quebec [15], UK
[16], Africa (Tanzania) [17]…
“As the new coronavirus began to spread across the country, the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sent contaminated test
kits to the states in early February, according to a federal investigation.”
“Thousands of swabs ordered by Quebec City to test for COVID-19 were
found to be potentially contaminated... Fungal
contamination was found on several swabs. According to Nicolas Vigneault,
spokesperson for the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, the swabs
came from a shipment received from China.”
“One batch of coronavirus tests, out of the millions expected by the UK,
has been contaminated by the virus itself. The British
government had ordered batches of tests for coronavirus from a laboratory. But
one of these was infected by … Covid-19 itself,” the Telegraph explains,
without giving any explanation as to why this unfortunate contamination
occurred. The delivery of these tests was immediately cancelled.”
“The Tanzanian President
believes that the coronavirus epidemic is not yet on the scale of the official
figures. According to him, the data on Covid-19 are being doctored by alarmist
authorities, he denounced in his speech… He claims to have himself secretly
tested a goat, a quail and a papaya, but to his astonishment the results were
positive. He therefore questions the reliability of the tests. These positive
results on animals and even plants are, for him, proof that people declared
positive for the virus might not actually be carriers. This would mean that the
real situation is not as alarming in Tanzania.”
That’s a lot of mistakes, all over the world, don’t
you think?
Strange, the lack of coverage in major
Western media.
It’s very serious though, and it calls
into question the whole campaign of massive screening for this coronavirus.
The opinion of an international expert
John P. A. Ioannidis is not just anyone on the international medical
scene.
“John P. A. Ioannidis is a
professor of medicine and a researcher at Stanford University’s School of
Medicine and School of Humanity and Science. Director of the Stanford
Prevention Research Center, he is co-director, with Steven N. Ioannidis, of the
Stanford Prevention Research Center. Goodman, the Meta-Research Innovation
Center at Stanford. “[18].
He is one of the most recognized
specialists in health epistemology.
He is adamant:
“As the coronavirus pandemic
unfolds, we’re making decisions without reliable data.” [19]
It confirms that the PCR tests used in
the COVID-19 crisis are not as reliable as that, despite the efforts of the
media and our health institutes (Sciensano in Belgium) to make us believe so.
See his
interview : Perspectives on the Pandemic | Dr. John
Ioannidis Update: 4.17.20, at minute 27 for his comments on PCR testing in the context
of COVID-19.
In summary
What a fiasco.
The diagnostic tests represented above
all by RT-PCR, a gene amplification technique, are far from having the expected
reliability, which is crucial in a crisis such as the one we are going through.
Even if positive, the RT-PCR test only
reveals an RNA fragment of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, not the COVID-19 disease
itself. In order to say that, we need a corresponding clinical picture! All
other pathologies of the patient must be considered and if the patient dies,
they must be taken into account before attributing death to COVID-19!
This is frightening when you imagine the possible unjustified consequences of
decisions made on the basis of these tests!
–Confinement/quarantine
–Unprecedented freedom-destroying measures
–Hospital and health centre upheavals
–Serious diagnoses may be wrongly given to terrorized people who are actually
in good health.
–Social distancing with heavy consequences on human relations
–Major economic and social impact, the real scope of which is currently unknown
–Suspension of all social activities (schools, restaurants, leisure activities)
–Whole population tracking and policing projects
I
think that in the face of so much self-sustained insanity, despite the
widespread virus of fear, the best antidote is to stay calm.
Come
to your senses.
Reassess
the true extent of this disease (mortality below 3% [of positive cases] as of
May 26, 2020- [20]).
The
SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus will have to take its rightful place among all other
health problems, no more, no less.
And
we, may we quickly live again without masks, without social distance and
without laws which threaten civil rights.
And
learn from so many mistakes.
Dr. Pascal Sacré
Translation by Maya from the French
original published by Mondialisation.ca
Notes:
[1]
Wear a mask everywhere all the time, stay away from your family and friends,
don’t dare to go out or take public transport without your armour and visor,
don’t dare to touch anything without wearing gloves stuck to the skin by
perspiration…
[2] Coronaviruses
Coronaviruses (CoVs) are a large family of viruses that cause
symptoms ranging from the common cold to more serious illnesses such as Middle
East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). World Health Organization (WHO).
[3] PRISE EN CHARGE D’UN PATIENT POSSIBLE OU CONFIRMÉ DE COVID-19
[4] PCR en microbiologie : de
l’amplification de l’ADN à l’interprétation du résultat, Revue Médicale Suisse, RMS 106, 2007, Vol 3
[5] FAQs on Testing for
SARS-CoV-2 U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA
[6] Tutoriel prélèvement
nasopharyngé : Un geste technique, essentiel à la fiabilité du test COVID-19
[7] Détection et quantification des acides
nucléiques en infectiologie : utilité, certitudes et limites « Nous présentons ici une revue
de l’utilité des techniques PCR pour identifier les pathogènes les plus
courants ainsi que des commentaires permettant de guider l’interprétation de
ces résultats dans un contexte clinique. », Revue Médicale Suisse, RMS
13, 2005, Vol 1
[8] The Inconsistences of
Quantitative Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction in Diagnostics Microbiology Acta Scientific Microbiology Vol 1
Issue 2 February 2018
[9] 4 explications à l’échec des
TESTS du Covid-19 , 9 avril 2020
[10] Tests du covid-19, attention
aux faux positifs !, Pryska Ducoeurjoly 5
mai 2020
[11] Valeur prédictive des
résultats des tests diagnostiques : l’exemple des tests covid-19 23 avril 2020
[12] COVID-19 : le dépistage Le test a été développé par le
Laboratoire Hospitalier Universitaire de Bruxelles, le LHUB – ULB : un des cinq
plus grands laboratoires hospitaliers universitaires en Europe, à la pointe en
matière de biologie clinique.
[13] Remboursement des tests de
détection du Coronavirus pendant la pandémie de Covid-19
[14] Les tests de dépistage
fournis par les centres de contrôle aux USA étaient infectés par le Covid-19
[15] Des milliers d’écouvillons
importés de Chine par Québec sont inutilisables. D’autres provinces signalent des tests de
dépistage contaminés. 22 avril 2020
[16] Coronavirus. Des tests de
dépistage commandés par le Royaume-Uni contaminés par le Covid-19
[17] Tanzanie, Coronavirus : le
Président John Magufuli dénonce des « statistiques trafiquées et revues à la
hausse » 4
mai 2020
[18] John P. A. Ioannidis
[19] Un fiasco en devenir? Alors
que la pandémie de coronavirus s’installe, nous prenons des décisions sans
données fiables Nous manquons de preuves fiables sur le nombre de
personnes infectées par le SRAS-CoV-2 ou qui continuent de l’être.
[20] Le coronavirus (COVID-19) –
Faits et chiffres, 26 mai 2020
READ MORE: COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically
Meaningless
