Covid-19: disputed PCR tests

However, they are a pillar of current health strategies, which raises questions. PCR (polymerase chain reaction) was invented by the American biochemist Kary Mullis in 1984 to facilitate the identification of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). It makes them visible and can be analyzed after several steps which, in the context of Covid-19, include: 1. A sample of nasopharyngeal cells. 2. Extraction of all cellular RNAs. 3. The specific copy of the viral RNA sequences (if any) by an enzymatic reaction called reverse transcription. 4. Finally, its amplification through several cycles, by means of another enzymatic reaction (chain polymerization) destined to create millions of copies of these viral fragments, until they are detectable. But beware, too many loops generate false positives!

Large-scale use of such a sensitive test generates a large number of inaccurate results

This test requires large quantities of reagents, expensive laboratory equipment, highly skilled professionals working with masks, a double pair of gloves, shoe covers and a thousand other precautions. There are many possible technical biases and a major source of erroneous results: incorrect sampling, labeling errors, contamination of a reagent, incorrect pipetting, lack of interpretation, etc. A Boston lab suspended testing after detecting 400 false positives in a single day. Unused swabs sent to labs for analysis tested positive (meaning they were contaminated there). Tanzania President John Magufuli has let the world know that he has secretly sent papaya, sheep and goat samples to a Covid testing laboratory. Everything is back positive! Should we laugh at it? Not exactly. The point is that large-scale use of such a sensitive test generates a large number of inaccurate results. But that is not all.

Dr. Mike Yeadon, who was Pfizer’s chief scientific officer for sixteen years, recently said, “More than half of the positives are likely to be false, if not potentially all. “Oh yes! What PCR actually detects is only the presence of partial sequences of intact viral RNA. They can be a dead piece of virus or a non-viable virus. Their carriers therefore have no symptoms, they are not contaminants, but it is said. however they are positive. In a previous Health page (Paris Match no. 3724), we reported the study conducted by scientists from Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health (Boston) who denounced the uselessness of PCR tests as they are currently practiced . Useless because they do not distinguish the fragments of a living virus, which can be grown in the laboratory, the fragments of a dead Sars-CoV-2 or even a common cold coronavirus, which can sometimes also react positively. In patients residing in New York, Nevada and Massachusetts, all PCR positive, a nasal swab was redone to verify the viability of their viral RNA and quantify it, since only the viral load is correlated with the severity and contagiousness of the ‘infection. Result: 90% of the people who tested positive had only tiny traces of viral RNA, in no way contagious. One can imagine the consequences that the useless confinement of these people can have on the economy and on their professional or social life …

The use of all-round PCR makes no sense

On October 30, famous physician Anthony Fauci, director of the American National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (a branch of the National Institutes of Health), explained in an interview that over 35 amplification cycles, all PCRs are fake positive, linked to viral debris, cannot be grown in the laboratory and are not contagious. For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters in Atlanta, it is extremely rare to detect living viruses beyond 33 cycles. In the United States, however, the routine often pushes amplification beyond 40 cycles, and it’s the same in France! In its opinion of 18 September 2020, our High Authority for Health recommended staying between 35 and 40 cycles, i.e. above the threshold of 35. In other words, the current health strategy is based on results that do not reflect reality! Some experts are concerned: Would PCR be intentionally used to increase the number of cases? And if so, for what purpose?

Read also.Covid-19: encouraging results for a French saliva test

Nobody denies the value of screening to which we will return. But using full-range PCR makes no sense, especially since the information it provides is very limited in time: you can become positive three days after testing negative and being negative ten days after being tested. positive without knowing it. It would therefore be necessary to perform PCR every week at all, which is inconceivable. Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, said: “With the current testing practice, Covid-19 may never go away. It’s British humor. The French will appreciate it.

Any reproduction prohibited