Review of PCR Test -- estimated 97% false positives in the US

[mikewhitney]

Source: cormandrostenreview.com/report/

In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]

© Copyright Original Source

The Corman Drosten "study" was used to establish PCR testing for the novel coronavirus. However, this review is to promote the withdrawl of that paper from publication.


I have not heard of rejections of this analysis yet.

Source: cormandrostenreview.com/report/

SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPERIn light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

© Copyright Original Source

[Stoic]

Source: cormandrostenreview.com/report/

In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]

© Copyright Original Source

So when labs develop PCR tests, and test them against known negative samples, why don't they see lots of false positives?

And if most of the people who test positive for covid-19 don't really have it, what's causing our ICUs to fill up all over the country?

[mikewhitney]

So when labs develop PCR tests, and test them against known negative samples, why don't they see lots of false positives?

And if most of the people who test positive for covid-19 don't really have it, what's causing our ICUs to fill up all over the country?

There are quite a number of variables involved here. Have you gone through the report at all? It is an interesting report. You might find it helpful.

This is not saying that people are not getting sick. I'm not sure why you throw in your unrelated statement.

Some places may be getting good data if they are using it right. And people in the hospital may have correct results. As we have seen before, there is a narrow window where the PCR test can be performed (with low repetitions -- below 30 I think) with good correspondence to the ability to spread infection.

The numbers probably work out sufficiently to this 3%. If 100K people are tested positive, maybe only 6%. Of that maybe 3 or 4% are hospitalized. Then maybe 10% of those go to ICU

I am partly using North Dakota data as a rough guide
1.184Million tests
82504 positives (6% of tested people)
2868 hospitalized

The report then would be showing that only the 3% of 82504 are true positives. This comes out to be 2475. This puts the number near those who were hospitalized.

Also, one of the variables is whether the testing is done with better practices and using 25 or less cycles.

[Stoic]

There are quite a number of variables involved here. Have you gone through the report at all? It is an interesting report. You might find it helpful.

This is not saying that people are not getting sick. I'm not sure why you throw in your unrelated statement.

Some places may be getting good data if they are using it right. And people in the hospital may have correct results. As we have seen before, there is a narrow window where the PCR test can be performed (with low repetitions -- below 30 I think) with good correspondence to the ability to spread infection.

The numbers probably work out sufficiently to this 3%. If 100K people are tested positive, maybe only 6%. Of that maybe 3 or 4% are hospitalized. Then maybe 10% of those go to ICU

I am partly using North Dakota data as a rough guide
1.184Million tests
82504 positives (6% of tested people)
2868 hospitalized

The report then would be showing that only the 3% of 82504 are true positives. This comes out to be 2475. This puts the number near those who were hospitalized.

Also, one of the variables is whether the testing is done with better practices and using 25 or less cycles.

So, are you retracting your claim of 97% false positives in the US?

[mikewhitney]

One of the questions is whether the problems being described are reasonably representative of the failings of the test process. Were there any flaws in the analysis at the site I posted?

[mikewhitney]

So, are you retracting your claim of 97% false positives in the US?

How so? I think you failed to read what I wrote. There can also be false positives in the hospital tests. So what is your point?

[Stoic]

One of the questions is whether the problems being described are reasonably representative of the failings of the test process. Were there any flaws in the analysis at the site I posted?

I think the better question is, why should we trust the analysis at the site you posted?

[mikewhitney]

I think the better question is, why should we trust the analysis at the site you posted?

Certainly. You and others have the opportunity to challenge the study. I was asking if there have been challenges to this study.

[Stoic]

Certainly. You and others have the opportunity to challenge the study. I was asking if there have been challenges to this study.

Any nut can write an unpublished paper. If that one is being ignored by real scientists, there is probably a reason.

I don't know enough about the subject to critique the paper, but the conclusion you draw from it doesn't pass the smell test. The PCR tests in use have been validated against known positive and negative samples. If there were a lot of false positives, the tests wouldn't be used.

There's a pretty strong correlation between the number of positive tests going up and hospitalizations and deaths going up. That could still be true if there were a lot of false positives, but it would mean that the CFR was a lot higher that currently estimated. It would also mean that the vaccines are more important than ever, because otherwise we won't reach herd immunity for many years.

Speaking of the vaccines, the reason we know they are effective is that most of the people in the studies who test positive are people who didn't get the vaccine. If you are right about PCR tests, this would mean that the vaccines somehow protect against false positives. Can you imagine any mechanism by which that would happen?

[mikewhitney]

Any nut can write an unpublished paper. If that one is being ignored by real scientists, there is probably a reason.

I don't know enough about the subject to critique the paper, but the conclusion you draw from it doesn't pass the smell test. The PCR tests in use have been validated against known positive and negative samples. If there were a lot of false positives, the tests wouldn't be used.

There's a pretty strong correlation between the number of positive tests going up and hospitalizations and deaths going up. That could still be true if there were a lot of false positives, but it would mean that the CFR was a lot higher that currently estimated. It would also mean that the vaccines are more important than ever, because otherwise we won't reach herd immunity for many years.

Speaking of the vaccines, the reason we know they are effective is that most of the people in the studies who test positive are people who didn't get the vaccine. If you are right about PCR tests, this would mean that the vaccines somehow protect against false positives. Can you imagine any mechanism by which that would happen?

i can't believe that you still are associating number of positives in the 22-45 age group with deaths in the 70+ age group.

This challenge to the published article from January is being considered. We'll see what the journal decides. I would expect that original article would be pulled so that the journal can maintain it's reputation.

[mikewhitney]

Any nut can write an unpublished paper. If that one is being ignored by real scientists, there is probably a reason.

here's the concern of those who shared this report. (Bobby is the nickname for one of the contributors AFAIK.)

Bobby says:

December 6, 2020 at 2:20 pm

This [review/report] was always thought as transparent and public extern review report. Otherwise it would have vanished unnoticed. Scientific additions / remarks are commented and that is an integral part of scientific discussions, that is the core reason why science has brought prosperity to mankind in the past, in the present and also in the future. Present time developments already indicate that future review processes will be more transparent and most probably hard to corrupt through decentralized technology & review process-procedures

Although this review/report is being analyzed by the publishers of the original article, the concern expressed here is that science already is being politicized. Discussions elsewhere consider the political ramifications for governments, politicians and institutions who promoted the PCR test based on the original article. Such groups do not readily admit their mistakes.

This review/report then is geared to present the problems of the PCR tests to both sway scientific and public opinion. If the original study is reasonably defended in a public fashion (within the journal), that article should be able to withstand public opinion (since we are not dealing with some eugenics study).