Coronavirus, quando la scienza contraddice sè stessa

Riporto una semplice ma interessante osservazione dell’amico Daniele di Luciano sul fatto che i contagi (termine da predere sempre con le pinze, perchè, nell’immaginario collettivo induce a pensare a malati, quando questo è tutt’altro che vero) sono aumentati di più nel periodo di “lockdown” (=arresti domiciliari e precauzioni al massimo) che non adesso, periodo di relativa libertà e socialità ritrovata.

Così come anche nella teoria HIV -> AIDS, che fa acqua da tutte le parti, anche qui si vuole, da una parte, zittire i critici e gli oppositori con la parola “scienza“, dall’altra non ci si preoccupa di essere coerenti con la stessa scienza (che, come sapete, io non condivido in particolare nella parte relativa a germi, batteri e virus, ma che almeno, per essere credibile, dovrebbe avere la caratteristica della coerenza), ad esempio per quanto riguarda i principi di Koch sugli elementi patogeni.

-oOo-

La gente si contagia di più durante il lockdown che quando va al mare.

Il Ministero della Salute c’informa che «il periodo di incubazione rappresenta il periodo di tempo che intercorre fra il contagio e lo sviluppo dei sintomi clinici. Si stima attualmente che vari fra 2 e 11 giorni, fino a un massimo di 14 giorni».

-oOo-

Aggiungo un altro pezzo che dice la setssa cosa che andiamo dicendo da tempo in tanti: l’assoluta inutilità e fuorvianza del test PCR per la ricerca del “contagiato”. Originale qui, m (nella versione riportata da G.Griffin, altrimenti qui);

copio e incollo il testo.

Bulgarian Pathology Association Says COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless

The Bulgarian Pathology Association published a paper concluding that PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool for SARS-CoV-2, yet these are the tests used to determine case numbers and death statistics to justify lockdowns, masks, social distancing, contact tracing, and more. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, said PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection. Furthermore, researchers have failed to prove that the virus is even a novel virus, meaning it could be any one or a group of virusus that have been harmlessly circulating for decades. [The significance of this is that the government mandate to” test-test-test” has only one purpose, and it is not to detect COVID-19. It is to produce statistics for a bogus second wave.] -GEG

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”

But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.

UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRA

At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.

Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:

Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.

But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.

This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.

As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”