Unexplained discrepancy between PHE and a PCR test kit manufacturer

I've never got to the bottom of who was actually telling the porkies -and pre-positioning of a defence by Government

Looking into PCR tests back in 2020 and the threshold cycles

PCR tests

and via FOIs I came across this document from the UK Government:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf

Understanding Cycle Threshold Ct In Sars Cov 2 Rt Pcr

806KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Looking at the pretty graph on page 5 it looks like the optimum number of threshold cycles to run is about 26-28 to give an accurate reading.

But the UK Government and many others worldwide were using considerably more cycles than this and the UN’s WHO was recommending 50 cycles.

So I started thinking about and then asked the UK’s Public Health England (PHE) where the 45 cycles they were recommending came from.

They said “from the test kit manufacturers”.

So I looked on the MHRA’s website and found the list of officially approved PCR test kit manufacturers and picked one at random and asked them the same question - where did the 45 cycles requirement come from?

They replied and stated “it is a PHE requirement”.

From their reply :

This is a PHE requirement rather than what is laid out by the manufacturer.

Quit clear and understandable.

So I asked them “you sure on that as they say it’s not?”

I then re-checked PHE’s requirements again and they had changed so I sent another e-mail to the PCR test manufacturer with the new information.

With reference to our previous e-mail correspondence in November 2020 about the number of cycles to use in RT-PCR test analysis, you said the PHE requirement was for 45 to be used.

On the Government’s website, published mid-October 2020 there is this document:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sars-cov-2-rna-testing-assurance-of-positive-results-during-periods-of-low-prevalence/assurance-of-sars-cov-2-rna-positive-results-during-periods-of-low-prevalence

In it it says:

Recommended actions

All laboratories should determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of detection based on the in-use assay.

It is necessary to strike a balance between the risk of false positive test results and an acceptable level of delay in test turnaround time (time taken to report results).

This basically mean that the laboratory is responsible for deciding the number of amplification cycles to run, not the PHE, and research shows that any more than 28-32 is not recommended.

Recently Portugal’s courts has ruled that positive RT-PCR results cannot be used to justify isolation or other restrictions on individuals, there are court cases on-going in Germany that are similar and cases are being prepared in the UK for court cases on the same matter.

I’m guessing this recently published document is Government’s defence and they can blame the testing kit manufacturers such as yourself and testing labs for the “results” and a pandemic based on testing, not a real virus, when the court rules that the RT-PCR tests are being used in such a way they are outwith their recommendations and used in such a way they deliberately increased the number of “positives”.

Feel free to pass this information on to the relevant departments in your company, other test kit manufacturers and laboratories.

“Oh” they said - well a bit more than that in fact but you get my gist:

Thank you for this information.

This has been a very interesting read, to my knowledge guidelines on running the test were passed to the laboratories which will have stated the number of cycles required so I will be interested in knowing how that would affect any court rulings.

I was unaware of these cases being brought to court but will now look into this at is particularly interesting.

Anyone else gets the feeling that the UK Government has prepared to throw the PCR test kit manufacturers to the wolves if things get too sticky in a test court case or public inquiry or a Nuremburg 2?