Coronavirus

A Layperson’s Guide to the PCR Based Epidemic Hoax — Dr Sam Bailey

Posted on Feb 10, 2021August 13, 2022

Watch ➥ LBRY | Rumble | BitChute | Minds | Archive

Dr Sam Bailey

Dr. Sam Bailey is a medical doctor, based in Christchurch, New Zealand. She featured in a New Zealand TV series about health, The Checkup, and runs her own Youtube channel with 160k subscribers. Dr. Bailey is a qualified family doctor who has worked in general practice, sexual health, emergency, clinical trials and telehealth. She currently works in private research.

Notes

Owing to YouTube censorship she has started posting her videos on LBRY (Odysee). Consider supporting her SubscribeStar.

Transcript

Sam Bailey ➝ 00:00

Over and over again, we hear the media stating how many people have tested positive for COVID-19. The problem is that this makes no sense at all.

Today I’m going to explain why, as we dig deeper into PCR tests once again, and have a look behind the curtain of this COVID pandemic. [music]

Sam Bailey ➝ 00:22

The purpose of using tests and clinical medicine is to distinguish between having or not having a particular condition or disease.

Sam Bailey ➝ 00:31

For example, as a patient with chest pain, having or not having a heart attack. As a woman who missed her period, pregnant or not.

But a test and a condition are not the same thing. I’ve never had a woman come into my clinic and say, I think I might be positive for pregnancy. She either has a positive or negative pregnancy test and her condition as either pregnant or not pregnant.

Sam Bailey ➝ 00:54

All tests detect something. Let’s call it the object of interest and most go further and determine how much. For example, we may check the blood concentrations of glucose and cholesterol. These are direct tests, meaning the object of interest is the test, but there are many indirect tests where what is being measured as a reliable surrogate for the object of interest.

Sam Bailey ➝ 01:17

For example, when you have a heart attack, a doctor will measure an enzyme [troponin] that leaks from your damaged heart muscle cell, rather than chopping out a piece of your heart muscle to examine it under a microscope. Some tests such as home pregnancy tests are classified as positive or negative.

Pregnancy tests become positive at a certain threshold of hormone [human chorionic gonadotropin] being detected in the urine, which had been reliably established over a long period of time. We use indirect tests because they are simple, safe, quick and cheap, but indirect have a caveat – before they are introduced into routine clinical practice with real patients, it is absolutely essential to determine how well they match the object of interest.

There are long established scientific methods for doing this. Obviously this involves evaluating the test against the object of interest whose presence or absence is determined independently of the test.

Sam Bailey ➝ 02:13

So now that we’ve established the rules, let’s get into COVID-19. The mainstream theory is that a new virus called SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of a new disease called COVID-19.

The test for SARS-CoV-2 is not for the whole virus, the complete sublight microscopic particle itself. Perhaps most familiar is this computer generated image that we see on the news.

The test is supposed to detect a 1% fragment of an RNA molecule, its genome said to reside inside the virus particle. Based on its detection, a person is deemed infected with the virus SARS-CoV-2, because this tiny fragment is regarded as defecto for a hundred percent of the viruse’s RNA.

It could be seen as finding a horse like hair is evidence of the horse itself. This is problematic for three reasons.

First while there are many papers revealing the existence of the viral RNA and the presence of corona virus like particles on electron micrographs. There are none proving that the RNA comes from inside those particles. In fact, there is now a 225,000 Euro prize for proof of isolation of the virus and it’s contained genome sequence.
Second because no test is a hundred percent reliable, the RNA detected by the PCR may not be the 1% of the viral genome.
Third, since there are no reports of RT-PCR evaluated against the virus itself, no one knows how many people who test positive for the virus are actually infected with the virus. It’s like, we’ve found the horse hair, but can’t say anything about the horse or the jockey, not a good situation, but this is what happens when scientists, for whatever reasons, cut corners and ignore the basics for establishing test parameters.

The detonator for the worldwide explosion of so-called COVID-19 PCR testing was the Corman-Drosten group paper published on 23rd of January 2020 and critically the paper was accepted for publication within 24 hours of submission, and several authors failed to declare their financial conflicts of interest with a commercial PCR test lab.

Sam Bailey ➝ 04:21

Also somewhat unusually version 1.0 of the paper protocol appeared on the WHO website nine days before the paper was even accepted for publication, but the Corman-Drosten paper was just a lab study, meaning it didn’t establish the validity of using the test in the real world.

No evidence was provided about how a positive test related to the condition of COVID-19.

As I’ve discussed in previous videos, this wasn’t the only problem with this paper. And on the 26th of November, 2020, a consortium of health professionals and scientists sent a reattraction request letter to Eurosurveillance outlining their multiple concerns. I believe they are still awaiting a response.

Back in January, 2020, however, it was too late. And a test that had no track record was promoted to the world as the best way to diagnose COVID-19.

Sam Bailey ➝ 05:12

When the mainstream media and government scientists started telling the public that the COVID-19 PCR tests were 95% or 99% accurate, it was not made clear to the public, what that actually meant.

In New Zealand for instance, the ministry of health website stated, and this is in February, 2021, that a recent laboratory study found that different COVID-19 testing kits correctly detected COVID-19 and samples more than 95% and frequently a hundred percent of the time.

This statement is problematic for many reasons, including confusing COVID-19 the condition with SARS-CoV-2, the alleged virus. The RT-PCR does not test for COVID-19 in samples.

And if correctly detected means accuracy, the letter cannot be determined without first evaluating the true positive and true negative rates of the RNA test for infection with SARS-Cov-2. But this has never been established.

What is detected in a sample is not COVID-19. What is detected as a small piece of RNA.

Sam Bailey ➝ 06:17

So it seems likely that the ministry of health has confused the analytical specificity of the test with its diagnostic specificity for the condition.

Analytical specificity in this case is how well the test can accurately detect a target RNA sequence. So if a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kit has a hundred percent analytical specificity, it tells you that it never picks up the wrong RNA molecule, but you can’t get too excited because that’s like saying that your blood glucose test never picks up your blood cholesterol.

What we need to know is the diagnostic specificity, which is the probability that the test will be negative when the condition is not present.

February 9, 2021
“Also somewhat unusually version 1.0 of the paper protocol appeared on the WHO website nine days before the paper was even accepted for publication”
Dr Sam Bailey

For example, a pregnancy test that has a hundred percent diagnostic specificity would mean we expect all non-pregnant woman to test negative.

Therefore, even if a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kit has a hundred percent analytical specificity, it is still meaningless as a test for viral infection without proof of the diagnostic specificity determined against the virus.

And this has never been established at all. It has been amazing to see in recent times that some virologists have tuned into chemists under the spell of PCR. I was stunned to hear Australian professor of neurology, Bill Rawlinson, make the following statement last year on a broadcast:

With basic science and improving diagnostics and the ability to sense a molecule, and after all a virus, is just a piece of RNA molecule.

Sam Bailey ➝ 07:48

Interestingly, after he made the statement, none of the panel of experts joining him on the broadcast, even called him out on this. Maybe this was just a slip-up on the professor’s part, but this sort of thing could be adding to the confusion.

So it’s important that those of us that respect logic and the scientific method will not allow analytical specificity to be merged into diagnostic specificity, and then passed off as a valid medical practice.

However, the lack of formalized clinical diagnostic criteria for COVID-19 seemed to allow the slight of hand to be hidden in plain sight. I made a video titled What is a COVID-19 Cas, in late 2020, addressing this very issue In my presentation, I show that the WHO’s official documents states that are confirmed COVID-19 case is a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.

This was a bad look for the WHO because it openly admitted that cases were not required to be related to disease. Just three days later, they removed the statement and published a completely revised document.

While the new version looked more scientific, essentially nothing had changed as a confirmed case, could still be a person with a positive nucleic acid amplification test. So any old positive PCR will do, to edge of the smoke screen, the WHO website released another PCR update on the 20th of January, 2021, stating the assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis.

Sam Bailey ➝ 09:27

On the 11th of November, 2020, the COVID-19 PCR tests hit some of their first major legal problems. Judges and the Lisbon court of appeal delivered some decisive rulings, including in view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable, to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus – that I can certainly agree with.

They also said the test reliability depends on the number of cycles used, which is being far too generous because no diagnostic specificity was ever established. So cycle thresholds are meaningless in this regard as well.

February 9, 2021
“When the mainstream media and government scientists started telling the public that the COVID-19 PCR tests were 95% or 99% accurate, it was not made clear to the public, what that actually meant.”
Dr Sam Bailey

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that reducing cycle threshold requirements for a positive case, wouldn’t be a good start.

It’s likely that a cycle threshold of say 25 down from the 40 cycles, typically being used would result in such a dramatic decrease in cases that panicked policymakers would be forced to concede that they’ve been swept up in a PCR pandemic with regards to even 36 or 37 cycles being classified as positive for COVID-19 PCR expert.

Sam Bailey ➝ 10:33

Professor Steven Bustin stated back in April 14, 2020, it’s absolute nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever. From his point of view, once you get above a cycle of about 35, that would be roughly equivalent to a single copy of target RNA and what a single piece of RNA, it would be absurd to conclude that a person is infected.

I really encourage you to listen to Professor Bustin explaining the limits of PCR and I’ve linked his interview with the late David Crow below. The inventor of the PCR Gary Mullis had even less faith in its application for detecting infections:

Separate from that. It’s just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It’s not… It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick. And it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.

Sam Bailey ➝ 11:23

I wish I could tell you that many of the policymakers are following the science, but I get the feeling the situation is going to go on for a bit longer. Keep the conversation going and the comments. And let me know if there are other aspects about PCR or diagnostics, you would like me to cover next.

References

COVID-19: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019
Claimed SARS-CoV-2 “Isolation”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32080990/
Proof of SARS-CoV-2 225,000 EUR prize pool: https://samueleckert.net/isolat-truth-fund/
Corman, Drosten, et al – Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
Official recommendation of the Corman-Drosten protocol & manuscript by the WHO,published on January 13th 2020 as version 1.0 of the document:
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/wuhan-virus-assay-
v1991527e5122341d99287a1b17c111902.pdf; archive: https://bit.ly/3m3jXVH
Corman-Drosten Review Report: https://cormandrostenreview.com/retraction-request-letter-to-eurosurveillance-editorial-board/
NZ Ministry of Health “COVID-19″ test results and their accuracy: https://web.archive.org/web/20210122000504/https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-health-advice-public/assessment-and-testing-covid-19/covid-19-test-results-and-their-accuracy
NZ Ministry of Health link to analytical specificity: https://www.finddx.org/covid-19-old/sarscov2-eval-molecular/molecular-eval-results/
The MIQE Guidelines for PCR (Analytic specificity) :https://www.gene-quantification.de/miqe-bustin-et-al-clin-chem-2009.pdf
ABC Broadcast 22 June 2020, Prof Bill Rawlinson – Director of Virology NSW Health, “…a virus is just a piece of RNA molecule.”: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/covid-testing-and-tracing/12379684
WHO COVID-19 Case definition update 16 December 2020: https://web.archive.org/web/20201223174118/https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Surveillance_Case_Definition-2020.2
WHO SARS-CoV-2 PCR update 20 January 2021: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
RT – Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/
The Infectious Myth Podcast, David Crowe – Stephen Bustin on Challenges with RT-PCR 14 April 2020: https://toppodcast.com/podcast_feeds/the-infectious-myth/
Off-Guardian 5 October 2020 – PCR Inventor: “It doesn’t tell you that you are sick”: https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/

More Resources: