1 Comment

1. 

   James Kelley on November 6, 2020 at 11:34 am

   Hello Mr. Brooks,

   I’ve come across several of your articles in the Ledger-Transcript over the past few months. In your recent article discussing the record number of cases, you mentioned that PCR tests were “more accurate” than antigen tests; I’d argue that neither is particularly accurate and the PCR test is being abused due to the extremely high cycle threshold at which it’s being run.

   I spoke with Commissioner Shibinette recently and she agreed that using a cycle threshold of 40 was troublesome and also that requiring test centers to release the cycle at which a “positive” indication was returned would be a useful change to the current reporting structure.

   As you probably know, PCR is essentially a manufacturing procedure for genetic material in which the starting DNA or RNA sample is effectively doubled with each cycle. With this understanding, it’s important to note that 40 cycles is basically multiplying the starting material roughly one trillion times. I recently watched a video with Dr Fauci from a few years ago in which he flatly states that any PCR procedure run above 35 cycles is effectively meaningless and that any viral material identified could not even be cultured at those levels. In other words, those would be considered false positives.

   I think the universal decision to run these PCR tests to such a high threshold was a deliberate decision made with the understanding that it would necessarily generate a tremendous number of “positive” tests, which could then be used to justify continued infection management measures such as face masks, social distancing, remote work and school, isolation of the elderly, and increased authority for public health officials.

   Additionally, the CDC stated in a paper released in July titled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” that ” Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…” (https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download) This sounds to me like the CDC does not – nor does anyone else – have any isolated or purified viral material from the pathogen we’re being told causes COVID-19 and that they’ve used “characterized stocks” to create the test assays against which the PCR is being run. Would you agree that this might raise some questions about not only the efficacy of the test but also about the nature of the vaccines which are being rushed into production?

   I’m often accused of being “anti-science” when I try to have this discussion with people, but I want to make it clear that I’m anything but anti-science. I believe that any scientific hypothesis needs to be vigorously tested and should be able to withstand scrutiny. What we’re being told is science throughout this episode has been insulated from legitimate scrutiny and voices of dissent – even well credentialed professionals with relevant experience and impeccable resumes – have been silenced and refused a seat at the table, and I think this sets an extremely dangerous precedent when the changes being made are so drastic.

   Please let me know if you might be willing to discuss this and other pandemic-related concerns at some point because I think a lot of potentially important data and information is not getting the attention it deserves during this epidemic.

   Regards,

   James Kelley

   Reply