I received a FOI request answer from the Department of Health and Social Care Reference FOI-1240596 and it stated that a positive PCR test means nothing medically.
I asked this question:
- supply the justification that a "positive" test means the person is suffering from the virus as is a danger to the public and must be isolated.
The actual quote: "SARS-CoV-2 RNA means the RNA is present in that sample at that point in time. It does not mean that the patient has the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).”
To corroborate this there is this info and Government documents:
Some quotes:
Cycle threshold (Ct) is a semi-quantitative value that can broadly categorise the concentration of viral genetic material in a patient sample following testing by RT PCR as low, medium or high – that is, it tells us approximately how much viral genetic material is in the sample.
A single Ct value in the absence of clinical context cannot be relied upon for decision making about a person’s infectivity.
The clinical significance of positive results with high Ct are difficult to interpret in the absence of clinical history and context.
And the absolute best and damning quote:
RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present.
Or from a RT-PCR test kit manufacturer that the Government uses and who I picked at random and contacted asking for information about what a test result means, in the various technical documents they sent me it stated at various points:
The final diagnosis should not be based solely on the results of this product. The final diagnosis should be based on a combination of different test methods and clinical results at the discretion of the physician"
The detection of viral RNA of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent upon proper specimen collection, handling, transportation, storage, and preparation, including extraction. Failure to observe proper procedures in any one of these steps can lead to incorrect results.
Results from the device should be correlated with the clinical history, epidemiological data and other data available to the clinician evaluating the patient.
This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen
This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.
So they tests should not be used to “diagnose” anything and are certainly not a test that can then be used to state the person is a “case” medically and therefore can be used to justify restrictions and lockdowns.
I asked them where the requirement for the 45 amplification cycles came from. Their answer was:
“This is a PHE requirement rather than what is laid out by the manufacturer."
The DHSC also kindly supplied this link in the same FOI answer to a document by Health Technology Wales which in answer to this question:
- the official policy/guidance from DHSC to the various bodies who are following the above policy. I can confirm that the Department holds information relevant to your request. As the information held by the Department is in the public domain, we will under Section 21 of the FOI Act (information accessible to the applicant by other means) refer you to the published source, a summary of evidence on the accuracy of the test,
It does include a few notable gems such as :
We identified 39 individual studies and one pooled analysis reporting outcomes including diagnostic accuracy, detection rates and the time taken to obtain test results. (they added this update) We carried out quality assessment of the studies and judged the majority to be at risk of bias in one or more aspect of their design or conduct, which means their results may not be reliable. (My comment) So not too accurate then these studies?
Some studies did not include methods of confirmatory/differential diagnosis to validate the test results obtained (e.g. the proportion of likely false positive and negative results). (they added this update) A pooled analysis estimated the sensitivity of an initial RT-PCR test result to be 89%, using results of repeated RT-PCR as the reference standard. (My comment) So does this mean that there is an estimated 11% false result?
There are important gaps in the available evidence on the effectiveness of tests for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. (they added this update) Studies of virus testing in asymptomatic patients, or in specific populations such as healthcare workers are limited in number and there is no evidence on the validated diagnostic performance of the tests beyond their use in the hospital setting. (My comment) So pretty useless then?
A true assessment of the accuracy of RT-PCR test results is very challenging, and using these RT-PCR for validation mean the same issues apply to the results of antibody tests studied in this way. (My comment) so the test has lots of problems with accuracy and the antibody test cannot be used for doublechecking the results due to these inaccuracies?
So basically as admitted by the DHSC thePCR tests are “unreliable” to say the least, have no reference standard to double check the accuracy against and that have results that means nothing medically.