Please subscribe to this excellent fact based and informative podcast to hear common sense evidence based information by Prof Carl Heneghan which help to inform your own health decisions
Prof Heneghan has good answers, but I very much fear he will be asked the wrong questions. So far,those asking the questions seem to have already made up their minds that they are looking to blame someone, anyone, for not acting fast enough in implementing restrictions and tests, rather than whether those tests or restrictions have any scientific evidence of efficacy. I hope and pray that Carl can help the inquiry carry out its work in an unbiased - evidence based -manner!!
If there hadn't been any testing, would we have ever seen this 'PHEIC' pandemic?
It's astonishing, all the testing of people without symptoms, with supposed 'positive' tests being used to quarantine, aka imprison, people who weren't even sick!
Testing, social distancing...it's all a scam - when is someone in the scientific/medical establishment effectively going to call this out for what it is - the biggest crime in history!
Via the rubbish testing, people's free movement and association was stolen from them.
People were denied contact with sick and elderly loved ones...humanity was denied.
This so grotesque.
Who did this to us? This destruction of society. This is what must be exposed now...
Go back to the beginning and look at the timeline - what was the justification for the mass population testing around the world, and the 'vaccine solution' - against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn't a serious threat to most people...
Lay people were onto this from the beginning, see for example my BMJ rapid responses:
Thanks for this episode which confirms so much that a feared was true. Your calm careful approach is much appreciated.
But I do worry that, by getting distracted by detail and analogy, your important points do not come over clearly.
I think you confirmed that if you are found to be PCR+ve more that 8 days after symptom onset you are unlikely to still be infectious. This is more relevant if your test was +ve at more that 28 cycles.
I think it follows that if PCR+ve but you never had any symptoms your viral load is probably low and you are unlikely to be infectious.
In my opinion, it's this last point which is crucial to understanding the futility of our pandemic response.
Many people I know, who were +ve (with a high cycle threshold), self-isolated, and didn't attend work, believing they were infectious even though they never suffered any symptoms.
I agree with this Keith. Though the PCR was never a test of infectiousness it usually was interpreted as such and that had repercussions. With Pillar 2 testing became uncoupled from assessment and a mishmash of diagnostic testing along with ‘case finding’ in asymptomatic people, which was basically a form of screening but called case finding, perhaps so that it couldn't be held to the standards of national screening? Anyone could now get a test if they wanted one, for whatever reason, and the labs processing the tests had no clue of the history nor did anyone seem to care. The pretest probability/prevalence of infection in those asymptomatic people would be significantly lower that in people with ILI/ARI symptoms, especially where there was no infectious contact.
The issue of false positive PCRs/ single gene low level positives had a real human cost, as was highlighted by Brendan Healy in a BMJ rapid response in July 2020 (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1808/rr-22). He warned of the risks of large volume screening at a time of low prevalence. Another team (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524437/) raised similar concerns and listed the consequences. That is before we even consider the issue of operational false positives. But when concerns were raised, the powers that be and people who ran the labs (naturally enough) denied their potential significance, even when we heard whistleblower evidence of the huge contamination risks in the labs.
We were encouraged not to question the validity of PCR results (unless they were negative but expected to be positive) and it became a bit taboo to talk about false positives. You are brave to tackle this subject and you have my great respect.
What is puzzling is how uninformed we all were about the potential for oversensitivity of the PCR tests, including the people who might have been expected to know in Public Health, who we looked to for advice.
We had to learn from experience, even though the in 2014 , Drosten himself had said ‘The PCR method is so sensitive that it can detect as single genetic molecule of virus for example, such a pathogen flits over the nasal mucous membranes of a nurse for a day without becoming ill or noticing anything, then it is suddenly a MERS case. Where previously terminally ill were reported, now suddenly mild cases and people who are actually very healthy are included in the reporting statistics. In addition the local media boiled the matter up incredibly high.’
Yet the issue of persistent PCR positivity wasn't known - we only realised after people in critical caring roles were excluded from work for weeks after their 10d quarantine due to persistent PCR positivity (on advice from Public Health, who initially recommended they should wait for a negative test before returning to work). This put even more stress on the care homes. Eventually we realised that the PCR was just picking up evidence of past infection and they weren't infectious and hadn't been for weeks.
For care home residents who had survived Covid but were subsequently admitted to hospital for something else, a PCR detecting past infection would trigger a new Covid diagnosis, a new period of isolation, their ward closed to admissions, visiting restrictions, testing of all staff, increased anxiety/restrictions in the care home until the 14d quarantine over and no other positives found. It was a nightmare, everything churned up again, and all the suspicion and stress.
Given that people were raising the issue of PCR cycle threshold in 2020, and the problem was known about in 2014, why were the tests not standardised/ reported with CT values as soon as this was flagged as a potential issue? We could have avoided all those knock-on consequences. I just don't understand why this wasn't done.
-How familiar are the people in the hearing with medical jargon? Not saying you should dumb down at all, but do they know when you talk about CT as in cycle threshold?
- regarding testing. The emphasis you put on interpretation of a test result in the context of the individual is crucial.
Testing was used as a ‘screening’-test. Normally ‘screening’ is followed up with further investigation. In SARS-Cov2 the minute you tested positive you were regarded as a ‘biohazard’ and in my view this was completely wrong for 2 reasons, aside from the issue of false positive tests and the risks associated from an asymptomatic positive person.
First of all the first message should have been ‘if ill stay at home’ and this message was not as strong as it should have been. Secondly, could you argue that people carrying a low viral load may have helped the development of herd immunity if they had just lived life as normal? But then again the low viral load may not have led to immunity?
As ever it is complicated.
Do you know time and date when you have to give evidence?
Please subscribe to this excellent fact based and informative podcast to hear common sense evidence based information by Prof Carl Heneghan which help to inform your own health decisions
Prof Heneghan has good answers, but I very much fear he will be asked the wrong questions. So far,those asking the questions seem to have already made up their minds that they are looking to blame someone, anyone, for not acting fast enough in implementing restrictions and tests, rather than whether those tests or restrictions have any scientific evidence of efficacy. I hope and pray that Carl can help the inquiry carry out its work in an unbiased - evidence based -manner!!
Thanks Nik, your concerns are shared by Tom and myself - we’ll keep you posted
If there hadn't been any testing, would we have ever seen this 'PHEIC' pandemic?
It's astonishing, all the testing of people without symptoms, with supposed 'positive' tests being used to quarantine, aka imprison, people who weren't even sick!
Testing, social distancing...it's all a scam - when is someone in the scientific/medical establishment effectively going to call this out for what it is - the biggest crime in history!
Via the rubbish testing, people's free movement and association was stolen from them.
People were denied contact with sick and elderly loved ones...humanity was denied.
This so grotesque.
Who did this to us? This destruction of society. This is what must be exposed now...
Go back to the beginning and look at the timeline - what was the justification for the mass population testing around the world, and the 'vaccine solution' - against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn't a serious threat to most people...
Lay people were onto this from the beginning, see for example my BMJ rapid responses:
- Is it ethical to impeded access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2, 25 March 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089/rr-6
- Looking at Sweden, COVID-19 and vitamin D... 13 July 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2475/rr-12
- Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly? 5 August 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l108/rr-4
- Why do we need a vaccine for Covid-19? 1 September 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258/rr-9
- Re: Covid-19 vaccines...or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines? Clarification needed, 21 September 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258/rr-14
- SARS-CoV-2 virus - disproportionate and ill-targeted response, 5 October 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3511/rr-0
- Covid-19 - "much to gain, by taking vitamin D supplements..." 5 October 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3790/rr-0
- Five years imprisonment and/or a $66,600 fine for refusing coronavirus vaccination? 30 October 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258/rr-17
- Who are the members of SAGE? There must be transparency and accountability for coronavirus policy, 6 November 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4235/rr-1
- Coronavirus mass testing - a gross waste of money and resources, 27 November 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4460/rr-2
- Liberal democracies being turned upside down to 'protect health services', 18 December 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4847/rr-16
- Is it ethical to include children in the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine trials? 5 February 2021: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86/rr-2
Responce
Thanks for this episode which confirms so much that a feared was true. Your calm careful approach is much appreciated.
But I do worry that, by getting distracted by detail and analogy, your important points do not come over clearly.
I think you confirmed that if you are found to be PCR+ve more that 8 days after symptom onset you are unlikely to still be infectious. This is more relevant if your test was +ve at more that 28 cycles.
I think it follows that if PCR+ve but you never had any symptoms your viral load is probably low and you are unlikely to be infectious.
In my opinion, it's this last point which is crucial to understanding the futility of our pandemic response.
Many people I know, who were +ve (with a high cycle threshold), self-isolated, and didn't attend work, believing they were infectious even though they never suffered any symptoms.
I agree with this Keith. Though the PCR was never a test of infectiousness it usually was interpreted as such and that had repercussions. With Pillar 2 testing became uncoupled from assessment and a mishmash of diagnostic testing along with ‘case finding’ in asymptomatic people, which was basically a form of screening but called case finding, perhaps so that it couldn't be held to the standards of national screening? Anyone could now get a test if they wanted one, for whatever reason, and the labs processing the tests had no clue of the history nor did anyone seem to care. The pretest probability/prevalence of infection in those asymptomatic people would be significantly lower that in people with ILI/ARI symptoms, especially where there was no infectious contact.
The issue of false positive PCRs/ single gene low level positives had a real human cost, as was highlighted by Brendan Healy in a BMJ rapid response in July 2020 (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1808/rr-22). He warned of the risks of large volume screening at a time of low prevalence. Another team (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524437/) raised similar concerns and listed the consequences. That is before we even consider the issue of operational false positives. But when concerns were raised, the powers that be and people who ran the labs (naturally enough) denied their potential significance, even when we heard whistleblower evidence of the huge contamination risks in the labs.
We were encouraged not to question the validity of PCR results (unless they were negative but expected to be positive) and it became a bit taboo to talk about false positives. You are brave to tackle this subject and you have my great respect.
What is puzzling is how uninformed we all were about the potential for oversensitivity of the PCR tests, including the people who might have been expected to know in Public Health, who we looked to for advice.
We had to learn from experience, even though the in 2014 , Drosten himself had said ‘The PCR method is so sensitive that it can detect as single genetic molecule of virus for example, such a pathogen flits over the nasal mucous membranes of a nurse for a day without becoming ill or noticing anything, then it is suddenly a MERS case. Where previously terminally ill were reported, now suddenly mild cases and people who are actually very healthy are included in the reporting statistics. In addition the local media boiled the matter up incredibly high.’
Yet the issue of persistent PCR positivity wasn't known - we only realised after people in critical caring roles were excluded from work for weeks after their 10d quarantine due to persistent PCR positivity (on advice from Public Health, who initially recommended they should wait for a negative test before returning to work). This put even more stress on the care homes. Eventually we realised that the PCR was just picking up evidence of past infection and they weren't infectious and hadn't been for weeks.
For care home residents who had survived Covid but were subsequently admitted to hospital for something else, a PCR detecting past infection would trigger a new Covid diagnosis, a new period of isolation, their ward closed to admissions, visiting restrictions, testing of all staff, increased anxiety/restrictions in the care home until the 14d quarantine over and no other positives found. It was a nightmare, everything churned up again, and all the suspicion and stress.
Given that people were raising the issue of PCR cycle threshold in 2020, and the problem was known about in 2014, why were the tests not standardised/ reported with CT values as soon as this was flagged as a potential issue? We could have avoided all those knock-on consequences. I just don't understand why this wasn't done.
I listened to your warm up session.
I have a few comments.
-How familiar are the people in the hearing with medical jargon? Not saying you should dumb down at all, but do they know when you talk about CT as in cycle threshold?
- regarding testing. The emphasis you put on interpretation of a test result in the context of the individual is crucial.
Testing was used as a ‘screening’-test. Normally ‘screening’ is followed up with further investigation. In SARS-Cov2 the minute you tested positive you were regarded as a ‘biohazard’ and in my view this was completely wrong for 2 reasons, aside from the issue of false positive tests and the risks associated from an asymptomatic positive person.
First of all the first message should have been ‘if ill stay at home’ and this message was not as strong as it should have been. Secondly, could you argue that people carrying a low viral load may have helped the development of herd immunity if they had just lived life as normal? But then again the low viral load may not have led to immunity?
As ever it is complicated.
Do you know time and date when you have to give evidence?