![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.globalresearch.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/RT-PCR-pr\u00e9paration-400x267.jpg\")
<\/div>\nIntroduction: using a technique to lock down society<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n All current propaganda on the COVID-19 pandemic is based on an assumption that is considered obvious, true and no longer questioned:<\/em><\/p>\n Positive RT-PCR test means being sick with COVID. This assumption is misleading<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Very few people, including doctors, understand how a PCR test works.<\/p>\n RT-PCR means R<\/strong>eal T<\/strong>ime-P<\/strong>olymerase C<\/strong>hain R<\/strong>eaction.<\/p>\n In French, it means: R\u00e9action de Polym\u00e9risation en Cha\u00eene en Temps R\u00e9el.<\/em><\/p>\n In medicine, we use this tool mainly to diagnose a viral infection.<\/p>\n Starting from a clinical situation with the presence or absence of particular symptoms in a patient, we consider different diagnoses based on tests.<\/p>\n In the case of certain infections, particularly viral infections, we use the RT-PCR technique to confirm a diagnostic hypothesis suggested by a clinical picture.<\/p>\n We do not routinely perform RT-PCR on any patient who is overheated, coughing or has an inflammatory syndrome!<\/strong><\/p>\n It is a laboratory, molecular biology technique of gene amplification because it looks for gene traces (DNA or RNA) by amplifying them.<\/p>\n In addition to medicine, other fields of application are genetics, research, industry and forensics.<\/p>\n The technique is carried out in a specialized laboratory<\/strong>, it cannot be done in any laboratory, even a hospital. This entails a certain cost, and a delay sometimes of several days between the sample and the result.<\/p>\n Today, since the emergence of the new disease called COVID-19<\/strong> (CO<\/strong>rona VI<\/strong>rus D<\/strong>isease-2019<\/strong>), the RT-PCR diagnostic technique is used to define positive cases, confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus responsible for the new acute respiratory distress syndrome called COVID-19).<\/p>\n These positive cases are assimilated to COVID-19 cases, some of whom<\/strong> are hospitalized or even admitted to intensive care units.<\/p>\n Official postulate of our managers: positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients. [1]<\/p>\n This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools [2].<\/p>\n This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments<\/strong>, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures<\/strong> such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Technical aspects: to better understand and not be manipulated<\/strong><\/p>\n The PCR technique was developed by chemist Kary B. Mullis<\/strong> in 1986. Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993.<\/p>\n Although this is disputed [3], Kary Mullis himself is said to have criticized the interest of PCR as a diagnostic tool for an infection, especially a viral one.<\/strong><\/p>\n He stated that if PCR was a good tool for research, it was a very bad tool in medicine, in the clinic [4].<\/p>\n Mullis was referring to the AIDS virus (HIV retrovirus or HIV) [5], before the COVID-19 pandemic, but this opinion on the limitation of the technique in viral infections [6], by its creator, cannot be dismissed out of hand; it must be taken into account!<\/p>\n PCR was perfected in 1992.<\/p>\n As the analysis can be performed in real time, continuously, it becomes RT<\/strong> (Real-Time) \u2013 PCR<\/strong>, even more efficient.<\/p>\n It can be done from any molecule, including those of the living, the nucleic acids that make up the genes:<\/p>\n Viruses are not considered as \u201cliving\u201d beings, they are packets of information (DNA or RNA) forming a genome.<\/p>\n It is by an amplification technique (multiplication) that the molecule sought is highlighted and this point is very important.<\/strong><\/p>\n RT-PCR is an amplification technique [7].<\/strong><\/p>\n If there is DNA or RNA of the desired element in a sample, it is not identifiable as such.<\/p>\n This DNA or RNA must be amplified (multiplied) a certain number of times<\/strong>, sometimes a very large number of times, before it can be detected. From a minute trace, up to billions of copies of a specific sample can be obtained, but this does not mean that there is all that amount in the organism being tested.<\/p>\n In the case of COVID-19, the element sought by RT-PCR is SARS-CoV-2, an RNA virus [8].<\/p>\n There are DNA viruses<\/strong> such as Herpes and Varicella viruses.<\/p>\n The most well known RNA viruses<\/strong>, in addition to coronaviruses, are Influenza, Measles, EBOLA, ZIKA viruses.<\/p>\n In the case of SARS-CoV-2, RNA virus, an additional specific step is required, a transcription of RNA into DNA by means of an enzyme, Reverse Transcriptase.<\/p>\n This step precedes the amplification phase.<\/p>\n It is not the whole<\/strong> virus that is identified, but sequences of its viral genome.<\/p>\n This does not mean that this gene sequence, a fragment of the virus, is not specific to the virus being sought, but it is an important nuance nonetheless:<\/p>\n RT-PCR does not reveal any virus, but only parts, specific gene<\/strong> sequences of the virus.<\/p>\n At the beginning of the year, the SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced.<\/p>\n It consists of about 30,000 base pairs. The nucleic acid (DNA-RNA), the component of the genes, is a sequence of bases. In comparison, the human genome has more than 3 billion base pairs.<\/p>\n Teams are continuously monitoring the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome as it evolves [9-10-11], through the mutations it undergoes. Today, there are many variants [12].<\/p>\n By taking a few specific genes from the SARS-CoV-2 genome, it is possible to initiate RT-PCR on a sample from the respiratory tract.<\/p>\n For COVID-19 disease, which has a nasopharyngeal (nose) and oropharyngeal (mouth) entry point, the sample should be taken from the upper respiratory tract as deeply as possible in order to avoid contamination by saliva in particular.<\/p>\n ll the people tested said that it is very painful [13].<\/p>\n The Gold Standard (preferred site for sampling) is the nasopharyngeal (nasal) approach<\/strong>, the most painful route.<\/p>\n If there is a contraindication to the nasal approach, or preferably to the individual being tested, depending on the official organs, the oropharyngeal approach (through the mouth) is also acceptable. The test may trigger a nausea\/vomiting reflex in the individual being tested.<\/p>\n Normally, for the result of an RT-PCR test to be considered reliable, amplification from<\/strong> 3 different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required<\/strong>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe primers are single-stranded DNA sequences specific to the virus. They guarantee the specificity of the amplification reaction. \u00bb [14]<\/p>\n \u201cThe first test developed at La Charit\u00e9 in Berlin by Dr. Victor Corman and his associates in January 2020 allows to highlight the RNA sequences present in 3 genes of the virus called E, RdRp and N. To know if the sequences of these genes are present in the RNA samples collected, it is necessary to amplify the sequences of these 3 genes in order to obtain a signal sufficient for their detection and quantification. \u00bb[15].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The essential notion of Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold or Ct positivity threshold [16].<\/p>\n An RT-PCR test is negative (no traces of the desired element) or positive (presence of traces of the desired element).<\/p>\n However, even if the desired element is present in a minute, negligible quantity, the principle of RT-PCR is to be able to finally highlight it by continuing the amplification cycles as much as necessary.<\/p>\n RT-PCR can push up to 60 amplification cycles, or even more!<\/p>\n Here is how it works:<\/p>\n Cycle 1: target x 2 (2 copies)<\/p>\n Cycle 2: target x 4 (4 copies)<\/p>\n Cycle 3: target x 8 (8 copies)<\/p>\n Cycle 4: target x 16 (16 copies)<\/p>\n Cycle 5; target x 32 (32 copies)<\/p>\n Etc exponentially up to 40 to 60 cycles!<\/p>\n When we say that the Ct (Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold or RT-PCR positivity threshold) is equal to 40, it means that the laboratory has used 40 amplification cycles<\/strong>, i.e. obtained 240<\/sup><\/strong> copies.<\/p>\n This is what underlies the sensitivity<\/strong> of the RT-PCR assay.<\/p>\n While it is true that in medicine we like to have high specificity and sensitivity of the tests to avoid false positives and false negatives, in the case of COVID-19 disease, this hypersensitivity of the RT-PCR test caused by the number of amplification cycles used has backfired.<\/p>\n This over-sensitivity of the RT-PCR test is deleterious and misleading!<\/strong><\/p>\n It detaches us from the medical reality which must remain based on the real clinical state of the person: is the person ill, does he or she have symptoms?<\/p>\n That is the most important thing!<\/p>\n As I said at the beginning of the article, in medicine we always start from the person: we examine him\/her, we collect his\/her symptoms (complaints-anamnesis) and objective clinical signs (examination) and on the basis of a clinical reflection in which scientific knowledge and experience intervene, we make diagnostic hypotheses.<\/p>\n Only then do we prescribe the most appropriate tests, based on this clinical reflection.<\/p>\n We constantly compare the test results with the patient\u2019s clinical condition<\/strong> (symptoms and signs), which takes precedence over everything else<\/strong> when it comes to our decisions and treatments.<\/p>\n Today, our governments, supported by their scientific safety advice, are making us do the opposite and put the test first, followed by a clinical reflection necessarily influenced by this prior test, whose weaknesses we have just seen, particularly its hypersensitivity.<\/p>\n None of my clinical colleagues can contradict me.<\/p>\n Apart from very special cases such as genetic screening for certain categories of populations (age groups, sex) and certain cancers or family genetic diseases, we always work in this direction: from the person (symptoms, signs) to the appropriate tests, never the other way around.<\/p>\n This is the conclusion of an article in the Swiss Medical Journal (RMS) published in 2007, written by doctors Katia Jaton and Gilbert Greub microbiologists from the University of Lausanne :<\/p>\n PCR in microbiology: from DNA amplification to result interpretation<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cTo interpret the result of a PCR, it is essential that clinicians and microbiologists share their experiences, so that the analytical and clinical levels of interpretation can be combined.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It would be indefensible to give everyone an electrocardiogram to screen everyone who might have a heart attack one day.<\/p>\n On the other hand, in certain clinical contexts or on the basis of specific evocative symptoms, there, yes, an electrocardiogram can be beneficial.<\/p>\n Back to RT-PCR<\/strong> and Ct<\/strong> (Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold).<\/p>\n In the case of an infectious disease, especially a viral one, the notion of contagiousness<\/strong> is another important element.<\/p>\n Since some scientific circles consider that an asymptomatic person can transmit the virus, they believe it is important to test for the presence of virus, even if the person is asymptomatic, thus extending the indication of RT-PCR to everyone.<\/p>\n Are RT-PCR tests good tests for contagiousness? [17]<\/p>\n This question brings us back to the notion of viral load and therefore Ct<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The relationship between contagiousness and viral load is disputed by some people [18] and no formal proof, to date, allows us to make a decision.<\/p>\n However, common sense gives obvious credence to the notion that the more virus a person has inside him or her<\/strong>, especially in the upper airways (oropharynx and nasopharynx), with symptoms such as coughing and sneezing, the higher the risk of contagiousness<\/strong>, proportional to the viral load and the importance of the person\u2019s symptoms.<\/p>\n This is called common sense<\/strong>, and although modern medicine has benefited greatly from the contribution of science through statistics and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), it is still based primarily on common sense, experience and empiricism.<\/p>\n Medicine is the art of healing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n No test measures the amount of virus in the sample!<\/p>\n RT-PCR<\/strong> is qualitative<\/strong>: positive (presence of the virus) or negative (absence of the virus).<\/p>\n This notion of quantity, therefore of viral load, can be estimated indirectly by the number of amplification cycles (Ct) used to highlight the virus sought.<\/p>\n The lower the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the higher the viral load is considered to be (high).<\/p>\n The higher the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the lower the viral load is considered to be (low).<\/p>\n Thus, the French National Reference Centre (CNR), in the acute phase of the pandemic, estimated that the peak of viral shedding occurred at the onset of symptoms, with an amount of virus corresponding to approximately 108<\/sup> (100 million) copies of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA<\/strong> on average (French COVID-19 cohort data) with a variable duration of shedding in the upper airways (from 5 days to more than 5 weeks) [19].<\/p>\n This number of 108 (100 million) copies\/\u03bcl corresponds to a very low Ct.<\/p>\n A Ct of 32 corresponds to 10-15 copies\/\u03bcl.<\/p>\n A Ct of 35 corresponds to about 1 copy\/\u03bcl.<\/p>\n Above Ct 35, it becomes impossible to isolate a complete virus sequence and culture it!<\/strong><\/p>\n In France and in most countries, Ct levels above 35, even 40, are still used even today!<\/p>\n The French Society of Microbiology (SFM) issued an opinion on September 25, 2020 in which it does not recommend quantitative results, and it recommends to make positive up to a Ct of 37 for a single gene [20]!<\/p>\n With 1 copy\/\u03bcl of a sample (Ct 35)<\/strong>, without cough, without symptoms, one can understand why all these doctors and scientists say that a positive RT-PCR test means nothing<\/strong>, nothing at all in terms of medicine and clinic!<\/p>\n Positive RT-PCR tests, without any mention of Ct or its relation to the presence or absence of symptoms, are used as is by our governments as the exclusive argument to apply and justify their policy of severity, austerity, isolation and aggression of our freedoms, with the impossibility to travel, to meet, to live normally!<\/p>\n There is no medical justification for these decisions, for these governmental choices!<\/p>\n In an article published on the website of the New York Times (NYT) on Saturday, August 29, American experts from Harvard University are surprised that RT-PCR tests as practiced can serve as tests of contagiousness, even more so as evidence of pandemic progression in the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection [21].<\/p>\n According to them, the threshold (Ct) considered results in positive diagnoses in people who do not represent any risk of transmitting the virus!<\/p>\n The binary \u201cyes\/no\u201d answer is not enough, according to this epidemiologist from the Harvard University School of Public Health.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s the amount of virus<\/strong> that should dictate the course of action for each patient tested. \u00bb<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The amount of virus (viral load); but also and above all the clinical state, symptomatic or not of the person!<\/p>\n This calls into question the use of the binary result of this RT-PCR test to determine whether a person is contagious and must follow strict isolation measures.<\/strong><\/p>\n These questions are being raised by many physicians around the world, not only in the United States but also in France, Belgium (Belgium Health Experts Demand Investigation Of WHO For Faking Coronavirus Pandemic<\/a>), France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Kingdom. in Germany, Spain\u2026<\/p>\n According to them: \u201cWe are going to put tens of thousands of people in confinement, in isolation, for nothing.<\/em> \u00bb [22]. 22] And inflict suffering, anguish, economic and psychological dramas by the thousands!<\/p>\n Most RT-PCR tests set the Ct at 40, according to the NYT. Some set it at 37.<\/p>\n \u201cTests with such high thresholds (Ct) may not only detect live virus but also gene fragments, remnants of an old infection that do not represent any particular danger,\u201d<\/em> the experts said.<\/p>\n A virologist at the University of California admits that an RT-PCR test with a Ct greater than 35 is too sensitive. \u201cA more reasonable threshold would be between 30 and 35,<\/em>\u201d she adds.<\/p>\n Almost no laboratory specifies the Ct (number of amplification cycles performed) or the number of copies of viral RNA per sample \u03bcl.<\/p>\n Here is an example of a laboratory result (approved by Sciensano, the Belgian national reference center) in an RT-PCR negative patient:<\/p>\n No mention of Ct.<\/p>\n In the NYT, experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that mention them.<\/p>\n Conclusion?<\/p>\n \u201cUp to 90% of the people<\/strong> who tested positive did not carry a virus. \u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40.<\/p>\n \u201cWith a Ct threshold of 35<\/strong>, approximately half<\/strong> of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive<\/em>,\u201d said the NYT.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd about 70%<\/strong> would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30<\/strong>! \u201c<\/em><\/p>\n In Massachusetts, between 85 and 90%<\/strong> of people who tested positive in July with a Ct of 40 would have been considered negative with a Ct of 30,<\/strong> adds the NYT. And yet, all these people had to isolate themselves, with all the dramatic psychological and economic consequences, while they were not sick and probably not contagious at all.<\/strong><\/p>\n In France, the Centre National de R\u00e9f\u00e9rence (CNR), the French Society of Microbiology (SFM) continue to push Ct to 37 and recommend to laboratories to use only one gene of the virus as a primer.<\/p>\n I remind you that from Ct 32 onwards, it becomes very difficult to culture the virus or to extract a complete sequence, which shows the completely artificial nature of this positivity of the test, with such high Ct levels, above 30.<\/p>\n Similar results were reported by researchers from the UK Public Health Agency in an article published on August 13 in Eurosurveillance<\/a>: \u201cThe probability of culturing the virus drops to 8% in samples with Ct levels above 35.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>[23]<\/p>\n In addition, currently, the National Reference Center in France only evaluates the sensitivity of commercially available reagent kits, not their specificity: serious doubts persist about the possibility of cross-reactivity with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2, such as other benign cold coronaviruses. [20]<\/p>\n It is potentially the same situation in other countries, including Belgium.<\/p>\n Similarly, mutations in the virus may have invalidated certain primers (genes) used to detect SARS-CoV-2: the manufacturers give no guarantees on this, and if the AFP fast-checking journalists tell you otherwise, test their good faith by asking for these guarantees, these proofs.<\/p>\n If they have nothing to hide and if what I say is false, this guarantee will be provided to you and will prove their good faith.<\/p>\n Until there is a better rationale for PCR screening, with a known and appropriate Ct threshold, an asymptomatic person should not be tested in any way.<\/strong><\/p>\n Even a symptomatic person should not automatically be tested, as long as they can place themselves in isolation for 7 days.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s stop this debauchery of RT-PCR testing at too high Ct levels and return to clinical, quality medicine.<\/strong><\/p>\n Once we understand how RT-PCR testing works, it becomes impossible to let the current government routine screening strategy, inexplicably supported by the virologists in the safety councils, continue.<\/p>\n My hope is that, finally, properly informed, more and more people will demand that this strategy be stopped<\/strong>, because it is all of us, enlightened, guided by real benevolence and common sense, who must decide our collective and individual destinies.<\/p>\n No one else should do it for us, especially when we realize that those who decide are no longer reasonable or rational.<\/p>\n Summary of important points :<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Overall Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n Is the obstinacy of governments to use the current disastrous strategy, systematic screening by RT-PCR, due to ignorance?<\/p>\n Is it due to stupidity?<\/p>\n To a kind of cognitive trap trapping their ego?<\/p>\n In any case, we should be able to question them, and if among the readers of this article there are still honest journalists, or naive politicians, or people who have the possibility to question our rulers, then do so, using these clear and scientific arguments.<\/p>\n It is all the more incomprehensible that our rulers have surrounded themselves with some of the most experienced specialists in these matters.<\/p>\n If I have been able to gather this information myself, shared, I remind you, by competent people above all suspicion of conspiracy, such as H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Banoun, Pierre Sonigo, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Toussaint, Christophe De Brouwer, whose intelligence, intellectual honesty and legitimacy cannot be questioned, then the Belgian, French and Quebec scientific advisors, etc., know all this as well.<\/p>\n So?<\/p>\n What\u2019s going on?<\/p>\n Why continue in this distorted direction, obstinately making mistakes?<\/p>\n It is not insignificant to reimpose confinements, curfews, quarantines, reduced social bubbles, to shake up again our shaky economies, to plunge entire families into precariousness, to sow so much fear and anxiety generating a real state of post-traumatic stress worldwide, to reduce access to care for other pathologies that nevertheless reduce life expectancy much more than COVID-19! [24]<\/p>\n Is there intent to harm?<\/strong><\/p>\n Is there an intention to use the alibi of a pandemic to move humanity towards an outcome it would otherwise never have accepted? In any case, not like that!<\/strong><\/p>\n Would this hypothesis, which modern censors will hasten to label \u201cconspiracy\u201d, be the most valid explanation for all this?<\/strong><\/p>\n Indeed, if we draw a straight line from the present events, if they are maintained, we could find ourselves once again confined with hundreds, thousands of human beings forced to remain inactive, which, for the professions of catering, entertainment, sales, fairgrounds, itinerants, canvassers, risks being catastrophic with bankruptcies, unemployment, depression, suicides by the hundreds of thousands. [25-26-27-28]<\/p>\n The impact on education, on our children, on teaching, on medicine with long planned care, operations, treatments to be cancelled, postponed, will be profound and destructive.<\/p>\n \u201cWe risk a looming food crisis if action is not taken quickly.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 [29].<\/p>\n It is time for everyone to come out of this negative trance, this collective hysteria<\/strong>, because famine, poverty, massive unemployment will kill, mow down many more people than SARS-CoV-2!<\/p>\n Does all this make sense in the face of a disease that is declining, over-diagnosed and misinterpreted by this misuse of overly sensitively calibrated PCR tests?<\/p>\n For many, the continuous wearing of the mask seems to have become a new norm.<\/p>\n Even if it is constantly downplayed by some health professionals and fact-checking journalists, other doctors warn of the harmful consequences, both medical and psychological, of this hygienic obsession which, maintained permanently, is in fact an abnormality!<\/p>\n What a hindrance to social relations, which are the true foundation of a physically and psychologically healthy humanity!<\/p>\n Some dare to find all this normal, or a lesser price to pay in the face of the pandemic of positive PCR tests.<\/p>\n Isolation, distancing, masking of the face, impoverishment of emotional communication, fear of touching and kissing even within families, communities, between relatives\u2026<\/p>\n Spontaneous gestures of daily life hindered and replaced by mechanical and controlled gestures \u2026<\/p>\n Terrified children, kept in permanent fear and guilt\u2026<\/p>\n All this will have a deep, lasting and negative impact on human organisms, in their physical, mental, emotional and representation of the world and society.<\/p>\n This is not normal!<\/p>\n We cannot let our rulers, for whatever reason, organize our collective suicide any longer.<\/p>\n Translated from French by Global Research. Original source: Mondialisation.ca<\/em><\/p>\n Dr Pascal Sacr\u00e9<\/strong> is\u00a0a physician specialized in critical care, author and renowned public health analyst,\u00a0Charleroi, Belgium. He is a Research Associate of the \u00a0entre for Research on Globalization (CRG)<\/em><\/p>\n ****<\/p>\n Professionals whose references and comments are the basis of this article in its scientific aspect (especially and mainly on RT-PCR):<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Banoun<\/strong><\/p>\n https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/profile\/Helene_Banoun<\/p>\n PhD, Pharmacist biologist<\/p>\n Former INSERM Research Officer<\/p>\n Former intern at the Paris Hospitals<\/p>\n 2) Pierre Sonigo<\/strong><\/p>\n Virologist<\/p>\n Research Director INSERM, worked at the Pasteur Institute<\/p>\n Heads the Virus Genetics Laboratory in Cochin, Paris.<\/p>\n Participated in 1985 in the sequencing of the AIDS virus.<\/p>\n 3) Christophe De Brouwer<\/strong><\/p>\n PhD in Public Health Science<\/p>\n Honorary Professor at the School of Public Health at ULB, Belgium<\/p>\n 4) Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Toussaint<\/strong><\/p>\n Doctor, Professor of Physiology at the University of Paris-Descartes<\/p>\n Director of IRMES, Institute for BioMedical Research and Sports Epidemiology<\/p>\n Former member of the High Council of Public Health<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Notes (French)<\/strong><\/p>\n [1] \u201cUne nette augmentation du nombre de cas dans toutes les provinces et toutes les tranches d\u2019\u00e2ge\u201d<\/a>, 7sur7 ACTU Belgique, 5-10-2020<\/p>\n [2] Le gouvernement belge renforce des mesures anti-Covid<\/a>, VRT.be\u00a0; 6 octobre 2020.<\/p>\n [3] Non, l\u2019inventeur du test PCR n\u2019a pas dit que sa m\u00e9thode \u00e9tait inefficace pour d\u00e9tecter les virus<\/a>, dans Le Monde, 7 octobre 2020<\/p>\n [4] Kary Mullis : \u00ab\u00a0Le test PCR ne permet pas de savoir si vous \u00eates malade\u00a0\u00bb<\/a>, vid\u00e9o accessible sur YouTube, 9 octobre 2020.<\/p>\n [5] https:\/\/www.weblyf.com\/2020\/05\/coronavirus-the-truth-about-pcr-test-kit-from-the-inventor-and-other-experts\/<\/a><\/p>\n [6] \u00ab\u00a0The Truth about PCR Test Kit from the Inventor<\/b> and Other Experts<\/a>\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n [7] PCR en microbiologie : de l\u2019amplification de l\u2019ADN \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du r\u00e9sultat<\/a><\/p>\n [8] COVID : La PCR nasale peut-elle mentir ?<\/a>, Dr Pascal Sacr\u00e9, AIMSIB, 30 ao\u00fbt 2020.<\/p>\n [9] https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=CaAcSJI0oMs&feature=youtu.be<\/a>, 8 octobre 2020. \u00c9volution\u00a0g\u00e9nomique\u00a0des virus ARN \u00e0 l\u2019Institut Pasteur<\/b>, environ la moiti\u00e9 des nucl\u00e9otides sont susceptibles d\u2019avoir mut\u00e9 sur les 30 000 nucl\u00e9otides de l\u2019ARN viral.\u00a0\u00ab\u00a0Pour l\u2019instant aucune mutation ou d\u00e9l\u00e9tion n\u2019a \u00e9t\u00e9 associ\u00e9e \u00e0 une perte de s\u00e9v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la maladie sur une grande \u00e9chelle g\u00e9ographique mais de nombreuses publications devraient bient\u00f4t pr\u00e9ciser ces points.<\/i>\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n [10] https:\/\/www.mediterranee-infection.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/FD_Raoult_SARS-CoV-2_EID_Sep2020_vL2.pdf<\/a>, Article IHU-M\u00e9diterran\u00e9e<\/b>, Professeur D. Raoult, Dramatic increase in the SARS-CoV-2 mutation rate and low mortality rate during the second epidemic in summer in Marseille, 7 septembre 2020<\/p>\n Conclusions\u00a0:<\/strong><\/p>\n Dans l\u2019ensemble, comme l\u2019ont r\u00e9cemment soulign\u00e9 Tomaszewski et al. (7) qui ont d\u00e9crit pour les g\u00e9nomes viraux disponibles jusqu\u2019en mai 2020 un d\u00e9placement mutationnel sur la spike et le complexe de r\u00e9plication vers des g\u00e8nes codant pour d\u2019autres prot\u00e9ines non structurelles qui interagissent avec les voies de d\u00e9fense de l\u2019h\u00f4te, il semble que le taux de mutation du SARS-CoV-2 s\u2019acc\u00e9l\u00e8re depuis mai, impliquant principalement des mutations C vers U. L\u2019augmentation du taux de mutation du SRAS-CoV-2 g\u00e9n\u00e8re des g\u00e9notypes viraux plus \u00e9loign\u00e9s de la souche Wuhan initiale que ceux observ\u00e9s de mars \u00e0 avril. Cela semble entra\u00eener des \u00e9pid\u00e9mies de dur\u00e9e limit\u00e9e, du moins pour le premier nouveau g\u00e9notype que nous avons identifi\u00e9, et est associ\u00e9 \u00e0 une gravit\u00e9 globalement moindre \u00e0 ce stade du d\u00e9veloppement de cette nouvelle \u00e9pid\u00e9mie.<\/p>\n Mutations observed in these seven different viral genotypes are located in most SARS- CoV-2 genes including structural and non-structural genes among which nsp2, nsp3 (predicted phosphoesterase), nsp5 (membrane glycoprotein), nsp12 (RNA-dependent RNA polymerase), S (Spike glycoprotein), ORF3a, E (membrane glycoprotein), M (membrane glycoprotein), ORF8 and N (Nucleocapsid phosphoprotein).<\/p>\n [11] https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/profile\/Helene_Banoun<\/a> Evolution of SARS-CoV-2: Review of mutations, role of the host immune system<\/a>, octobre 2020, mise \u00e0 jour par H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Banoun,<\/p>\n PhD, Pharmacien biologiste, ancien Charg\u00e9 de Recherches INSERM, ancien Interne des H\u00f4pitaux de Paris.<\/p>\n [12] https:\/\/nextstrain.org\/<\/a>, We are incorporating SARS-CoV-2 genomes as soon as they are shared and providing analyses and situation reports. In addition we have developed a number of resources and tools, and are facilitating independent groups to run their own analysis. Please see\u00a0the main SARS-CoV-2 page<\/a>\u00a0for more.<\/p>\n [13] Tutoriel pr\u00e9l\u00e8vement nasopharyng\u00e9 : Un geste technique, essentiel \u00e0 la fiabilit\u00e9 du test COVID-19<\/a><\/p>\n [14] Covid-19 : comment fonctionnent les tests et quelles sont leurs utilit\u00e9s ?<\/a><\/p>\n [15] COMMENT FONCTIONNENT LES TESTS DE D\u00c9PISTAGE DU COVID-19 ?<\/a> 7 avril 2020, Laboratoire de biologie et pharmacologie appliqu\u00e9e (LBPA), Cl\u00e9mence Richetta<\/b>, ma\u00eetre de conf\u00e9rences au d\u00e9partement biologie de l\u2019ENS Paris-Saclay et chercheuse en virologie au LBPA\u00a0: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=hNVDHCf8bGA<\/a><\/p>\n Independent researcher, PhD 9<\/p>\n Former research fellow at INSERM (French Institute for Health and Medical Research)<\/p>\n [16] Par Pierre Sonigo, virologiste (un des d\u00e9couvreurs du VIH), MD PhD, CSO at Sebia, clinical diagnostics<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/pulse\/diagnostic-du-covid19-comprendre-les-tests-pcr-leur-et-pierre-sonigo\/?trackingId=pTYxDkpvRzKHWZwCzxSIag%3D%3D<\/a><\/p>\n Diagnostic du COVID19 : comprendre les tests PCR, leur interpr\u00e9tation et leurs limites<\/strong>, publi\u00e9 le 16 septembre 2020<\/p>\n La PCR utilise un principe tr\u00e8s particulier : la cible du test, un fragment d\u2019ARN viral, est massivement amplifi\u00e9e afin de permettre sa d\u00e9tection. Au cours de l\u2019analyse, une r\u00e9action enzymatique associ\u00e9e \u00e0 des \u00ab\u00a0cycles\u00a0\u00bb de variation de temp\u00e9rature permet une s\u00e9rie de \u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9plications\u00a0\u00bb successives de l\u2019acide nucl\u00e9ique cible. Chaque cycle correspond \u00e0 une multiplication th\u00e9orique de la cible par 2. On multiplie donc par 2 en un cycle, par 4 en 2 cycles, par 8 en 3 cycles, par 16 en 4 cycles, et ainsi de suite de mani\u00e8re exponentielle. A l\u2019heure actuelle, l\u2019amplification est g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement pratiqu\u00e9e sur 40 cycles, soit une amplification th\u00e9orique de 2^40, environ mille milliards de fois\u00a0! En r\u00e9alit\u00e9, la r\u00e9plication n\u2019est pas efficace \u00e0 100%, mais la cible est amplifi\u00e9e environ un million de fois, ce qui permet de d\u00e9tecter moins d\u2019une dizaine de fragments d\u2019ARN dans le volume analys\u00e9.<\/p>\n Lorsque l\u2019acide nucl\u00e9ique viral est d\u00e9tectable apr\u00e8s un petit nombre de cycles, cela signifie que la quantit\u00e9 de virus dans l\u2019\u00e9chantillon de d\u00e9part est grande. Au contraire, lorsqu\u2019il faut un grand nombre de cycles de r\u00e9plication pour d\u00e9tecter l\u2019ARN viral, cela signifie que l\u2019\u00e9chantillon de d\u00e9part contient une quantit\u00e9 de virus tr\u00e8s faible. On parle alors en nombre de cycles, ou Ct, qui signifie \u00ab\u00a0cycle time\u00a0\u00bb, pour d\u00e9finir, au moins de fa\u00e7on semi quantitative, la quantit\u00e9 d\u2019ARN pr\u00e9sent dans l\u2019\u00e9chantillon de d\u00e9part. Ainsi, un petit Ct correspond \u00e0 un grand nombre de copies, un grand Ct \u00e0 un petit nombre de copies.<\/p>\n Cette spectaculaire sensibilit\u00e9 n\u2019est pas sans inconv\u00e9nient et n\u00e9cessite des pr\u00e9cautions particuli\u00e8res. En effet, un \u00e9chantillon positif amplifi\u00e9 un million de fois contient une tr\u00e8s haute concentration de cible et le risque qu\u2019il contamine (carry over) d\u2019autres \u00e9chantillons est particuli\u00e8rement \u00e9lev\u00e9. La saturation des laboratoires peut encore accro\u00eetre ce risque et g\u00e9n\u00e9rer des faux positifs accidentels. Dans ces conditions, il est important que les r\u00e9sultats positifs soient confirm\u00e9s par un second test, \u00e0 plus forte raison lorsqu\u2019un test positif pr\u00e9sente des cons\u00e9quences significatives, qu\u2019elles soient m\u00e9dicales, professionnelles ou li\u00e9es \u00e0 l\u2019obligation d\u2019isolement.<\/p>\n La deuxi\u00e8me question importante concernant la PCR, une fois encore cons\u00e9quence de sa spectaculaire sensibilit\u00e9, est celle de sa signification clinique. Un sujet parfaitement asymptomatique pr\u00e9sentant une PCR positive ne peut \u00eatre qualifi\u00e9 de \u00ab\u00a0malade\u00a0\u00bb, comme on le lit dans les m\u00e9dias qui rapportent la progression de l\u2019\u00e9pid\u00e9mie\u00a0! Peut-on m\u00eame parler de \u00ab\u00a0cas\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0? C\u2019est pourtant le terme utilis\u00e9 dans les d\u00e9nombrements officiels. Ne sommes-nous pas en train d\u2019oublier le patient pour se focaliser sur la technologie\u00a0? Est-ce une \u00e9pid\u00e9mie d\u2019ARN dans des tubes que nous surveillons ou une maladie grave et potentiellement mortelle\u00a0?<\/p>\n Des publications r\u00e9centes soulignent que la dose d\u00e9tectable par PCR est inf\u00e9rieure \u00e0 la dose infectieuse ou contagieuse\u00a0: aucun virus infectieux n\u2019a pu \u00eatre retrouv\u00e9 chez les patients asymptomatiques pr\u00e9sentant des tests PCR positifs avec un Ct \u00e9lev\u00e9. Suite \u00e0 ces r\u00e9sultats, la question du seuil de Ct qui permet de d\u00e9clarer un \u00e9chantillon positif est d\u00e9battue. Peut-on rendre un r\u00e9sultat n\u00e9gatif chez un sujet asymptomatique dont la positivit\u00e9 appara\u00eet au-del\u00e0 de 35 cycles\u00a0? A d\u00e9faut, est-il utile de retester ces \u00e9chantillons\u00a0? Comme souvent en mati\u00e8re de diagnostic m\u00e9dical, lorsqu\u2019un seuil de positivit\u00e9 est d\u00e9termin\u00e9, faut-il privil\u00e9gier la sensibilit\u00e9 ou la sp\u00e9cificit\u00e9 du test\u00a0?<\/p>\n De plus, un \u00e9chantillon confirm\u00e9 positif d\u2019un point de vue analytique reste un faux positif du point de vue de la clinique, si la personne test\u00e9e est en parfaite sant\u00e9, parfois m\u00eame pr\u00eat \u00e0 affronter une comp\u00e9tition de tennis ou de football\u00a0professionnels ! La question devient uniquement celle de sa potentielle contagiosit\u00e9. C\u2019est la question de la transmission \u00e9ventuelle par des sujets asymptomatiques, qui sans \u00eatre eux-m\u00eames en danger, pourraient en repr\u00e9senter un pour les autres.<\/p>\n Par rapport \u00e0 cette question, il est important de raisonner quantitativement. La virologie, ce n\u2019est pas du tout ou rien. De mani\u00e8re g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, au cours des infections virales aigu\u00ebs, le risque de contagion et la gravit\u00e9 de l\u2019infection varient en fonction de la quantit\u00e9 de virus pr\u00e9sents dans l\u2019organisme et de leur excr\u00e9tion dans le milieu ext\u00e9rieur. Quelques copies de virus tapis dans les sinus n\u2019ont pas la dangerosit\u00e9 d\u2019un million projet\u00e9s par la toux. Un sujet asymptomatique produit moins de virus qu\u2019un sujet symptomatique et les s\u00e9cr\u00e8te moins vers l\u2019ext\u00e9rieur. La quantit\u00e9 de virus produite et donc le risque de contagion sont corr\u00e9l\u00e9s \u00e0 la gravit\u00e9 des sympt\u00f4mes. M\u00eame si elle n\u2019est pas de z\u00e9ro, le risque de transmission est donc vraisemblablement faible pour un sujet asymptomatique. Malheureusement, r\u00e9p\u00e9ter sans cesse que la contagion venant d\u2019un sujet parfaitement asymptomatique est possible sans aucune pr\u00e9cision sur le niveau de risque pousse \u00e0 prendre des mesures disproportionn\u00e9es avec le risque.<\/p>\n De m\u00eame, la strat\u00e9gie \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9pister-isoler\u00a0\u00bb n\u2019est pas r\u00e9aliste lorsque le d\u00e9pistage n\u2019est pas suffisamment fiable et surtout lorsque le virus est d\u00e9j\u00e0 largement r\u00e9pandu dans la population. Il est bien trop tard pour appliquer une m\u00e9thode con\u00e7ue pour bloquer une \u00e9pid\u00e9mie \u00e0 sa naissance. Comme pour une invasion de coccinelles ou de frelons, on ne peut stopper un virus qui est d\u00e9j\u00e0 partout avec une passoire trou\u00e9e \u00e0 25% et bouch\u00e9e par endroits. L\u2019\u00e9chec de la strat\u00e9gie actuelle est plut\u00f4t li\u00e9 \u00e0 sa conception na\u00efve et inapplicable qu\u2019aux mauvais comportements des citoyens.<\/p>\n Si, comme on l\u2019observe en ce moment, la diffusion virale reprend, faut-il d\u00e9pister plus massivement ou revoir la strat\u00e9gie\u00a0de protection de la population ?<\/p>\n Cette question ne rel\u00e8ve pas de la science. Elle d\u00e9pend des risques acceptables par un individu ou par un groupe. Si on est dans la recherche du risque minimal, proche de z\u00e9ro, parce que le risque n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 quantifi\u00e9, ou pour des raisons de responsabilit\u00e9 juridique, on doit prendre les pr\u00e9cautions maximales. Si on accepte un risque m\u00eame faible, on peut reprendre certaines libert\u00e9s et prot\u00e9ger ceux qui en ont r\u00e9ellement besoin.<\/p>\n Le scientifique doit mesurer la grandeur des risques et ne pas se contenter d\u2019affirmer qu\u2019un \u00e9v\u00e9nement adverse est \u00ab\u00a0possible\u00a0\u00bb. Mais ce n\u2019est pas son r\u00f4le de d\u00e9cider si ces risques peuvent \u00eatre pris par autrui.<\/p>\n Les tests PCR permettent une d\u00e9tection extr\u00eamement sensible de l\u2019ARN viral. Ils sont indispensables mais ne sont pas la solution ultime et unique qui permettra de contr\u00f4ler l\u2019\u00e9pid\u00e9mie et de g\u00e9rer efficacement les risques de contagion. Appliqu\u00e9e lorsque le virus est largement diss\u00e9min\u00e9 dans la population, la strat\u00e9gie \u00ab d\u00e9pister isoler \u00bb est vou\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9chec. Du fait de la sensibilit\u00e9 tr\u00e8s \u00e9lev\u00e9e et des limites de leur sp\u00e9cificit\u00e9, les tests PCR doivent \u00eatre pratiqu\u00e9s et interpr\u00e9t\u00e9s avec pr\u00e9caution, et comme toujours en lien avec le contexte clinique et \u00e9pid\u00e9miologique. N\u2019oublions pas qu\u2019un sujet asymptomatique doit plut\u00f4t \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme immunis\u00e9 que comme malade.<\/p>\n [17] Les tests RT-PCR du Covid-19 se r\u00e9v\u00e8lent \u00eatre de tr\u00e8s mauvais tests de contagiosit\u00e9<\/a>, Xavier Boisinet, mis \u00e0 jour le 3\/9\/2020.<\/p>\n [18] De nombreuses publications partag\u00e9es des milliers de fois sur les r\u00e9seaux sociaux en quelques jours affirment que \u00ab\u00a090%\u00a0\u00bb des personnes d\u00e9clar\u00e9es positives au Covid-19 ont en fait des charges virales trop basses pour \u00eatre \u00ab\u00a0malades\u00a0\u00bb ou \u00ab\u00a0contagieuses\u00a0\u00bb. C\u2019est faux.<\/a><\/p>\n [19] Mise au point du CNR sur la r\u00e9alisation des pr\u00e9l\u00e8vements et la sensibilit\u00e9 des tests RT-PCR pour la d\u00e9tection du SARS-CoV-2<\/a>, 9 mai 2020<\/p>\n [20] Avis du 25 septembre 2020 de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Fran\u00e7aise de Microbiologie (SFM) relatif \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de la valeur de Ct (estimation de la charge virale) obtenue en cas de RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positive sur les pr\u00e9l\u00e8vements cliniques r\u00e9alis\u00e9s \u00e0 des fins diagnostiques ou de d\u00e9pistage, 25 septembre 2020<\/p>\n [21] Coronavirus \u2013 Les tests PCR inadapt\u00e9s contre l\u2019\u00e9pid\u00e9mie? \u00ab\u00a0Jusqu\u2019\u00e0 90% de personnes test\u00e9es ne seraient pas contagieuses\u00a0\u00bb<\/a>, bas\u00e9 sur une \u00e9tude d\u2019une \u00e9quipe de Harvard (\u00a0Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health<\/a>) de Michael Mina, d\u00e9partement d\u2019\u00e9pid\u00e9miologie, je vous mets en fichier joint le PDF correspondant,\u00a0une \u00e9tude, reprise par le\u00a0NY Times<\/a>\u00a0:<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Pour eux, la limite du test PCR (pr\u00e9l\u00e8vement par voie nasale ou salivaire) r\u00e9side dans la brutalit\u00e9 et la simplicit\u00e9 du r\u00e9sultat qu\u2019il donne. La personne est soit positive, soit n\u00e9gative. Pas plus de renseignement, notamment sur la contagiosit\u00e9 du malade.<\/i><\/p>\n Or, les scientifiques d\u2019Harvard soul\u00e8vent le probl\u00e8me de la quantit\u00e9 de virus que ce test PCR ne donne pas et qui pourrait, selon eux, permettre de donner des cl\u00e9s suppl\u00e9mentaires pour contrer l\u2019\u00e9pid\u00e9mie.\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Les tests standards diagnostiquent un grand nombre de personnes qui peuvent \u00eatre porteuses de quantit\u00e9s relativement insignifiantes du virus\u00a0\u00bb, explique ainsi le Dr. Michael Mina,\u00a0\u00e9pid\u00e9miologiste \u00e0 la Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health<\/i>.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n [22] \u00ab Au rythme actuel avec nos tests RT-PCR, nous allons confiner des dizaines de milliers de gens pour rien \u00bb, alerte le Dr. Yvon Le Flohic,<\/a> manuel Moragues, 3 septembre 2020.<\/p>\n [23] Tests de diagnostic ultra sensibles, les tests RT-PCR sortent positifs m\u00eame pour des individus qui portent trop peu de virus pour \u00eatre encore contagieux. Pour en faire de meilleurs tests de contagiosit\u00e9, certains appellent \u00e0 baisser leur seuil de d\u00e9tection. Est-ce une bonne id\u00e9e ? Quelles sont les limites de cette solution ? D\u00e9cryptage.<\/a>Xavier Boinivet, 15 septembre 2020<\/p>\n [24] Jean-Luc Gala (UCL) estime que les futures mesures de la Celeval, tel le lockdown, vont tuer l\u2019\u00e9conomie, provoquer des suicides et d\u00e9stabiliser l\u2019\u00c9tat.<\/a> Le Celeval, ou Cellule d\u2019\u00e9valuation, est le groupe d\u2019experts qui conseillent le gouvernement belge dans la gestion du COVID.<\/p>\n [25] L\u2019OMS plaide pour \u00e9viter \u00e0 tout prix les confinements : \u2018Cela ne rend que les pauvres plus pauvres\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n [26] Voici comment la pand\u00e9mie risque de faire exploser la pauvret\u00e9 mondiale, une premi\u00e8re en 22 ans<\/a><\/p>\n [27] \u2018Le coronavirus menace 500 millions de personnes de pauvret\u00e9\u2019, pr\u00e9vient l\u2019Oxfam<\/a>. Ce n\u2019est pas le coronavirus, la menace, mais l\u2019attitude de nos gouvernants face au coronavirus\u00a0!<\/p>\n [28] Le ch\u00f4mage de masse est d\u00e9sormais mondial<\/a><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.globalresearch.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/rt-pcr-tes.png\")
<\/a>A<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
\n