Dr. Sam Bailey, MD ‘Fact-Checked’ after her video on the inaccuracy of the PCR test for Covid-19

00:00
recently i have been fact-checked
00:06
when i heard that my pcr video had been
00:09
fact-checked and my video came with a
00:10
partly false information warning on
00:12
facebook
00:14
i felt like i was being silenced one
00:16
thing i learned in the special forces
00:18
when you cut off an enemy’s line of
00:19
communication you cut them off from help
00:21
as a journalist didn’t ask me what my
00:23
response was i felt it was
00:25
only fair to make a video on my channel
00:27
specifically addressing the effect
00:29
checking related to covert 19
00:31
pcr tests i’ll list all of my references
00:35
in the description for you as always and
00:37
i encourage you to continue your own
00:39
research so that
00:40
you can reach your own decision please
00:42
share any information
00:44
that you think is relevant in the
00:45
comment section
00:50
firstly the article has been written as
00:52
more of an opinion piece by afp’s
00:54
political reporter taylor thompson
00:56
fuller
00:57
and i can only take the quotes from the
00:59
three experts at face value
01:01
i’d be more than happy to have a
01:03
discussion with any of them
01:05
and they are more than welcome to reach
01:07
out to me
01:08
despite the article supposedly being
01:10
about my pcr video it links my video to
01:12
the advanced new zealand party and its
01:14
leader who they say
01:16
has made previous misleading claims in
01:18
case
01:19
it needs clarification i am a political
01:22
with no links to any political party now
01:25
just quickly i wanted to investigate who
01:27
the three
01:28
experts were that fact-checked me first
01:31
let’s check this guy out
01:35
the first is john mackay who owns a
01:38
company called
01:38
denature that received new zealand
01:41
government funding
01:42
to help develop a test to diagnose
01:45
covert 19
01:46
he’s also supplied the institute of
01:48
environmental science and research with
01:51
viral kits
01:52
the second is thomas lumley who is a
01:54
professor
01:55
of biostatistics at the university of
01:58
auckland
01:59
in new zealand disappointingly the
02:01
fact-checked
02:02
article didn’t seem to get any
02:04
statistical analysis from him so it’s
02:07
unclear
02:07
why he was interviewed thirdly there is
02:10
microbiologist professor david murdoch
02:13
from otago university
02:14
who has played a leading role in a bill
02:17
and melinda gates foundation funded
02:19
global study of childhood pneumonia he’s
02:22
also been
02:23
a key advisor to the new zealand
02:24
government during the covert 19
02:27
pandemic and one of three independent
02:30
international experts
02:31
selected to advise the oxford university
02:34
team
02:34
developing a vaccine for covert 19.
02:38
right let’s get down to the details in
02:41
my video i point out that the pcrts
02:43
doesn’t test for the virus and i stand
02:46
by this claim thomas lumley states that
02:49
the test
02:49
looks for rna sequences that are present
02:52
in the covert 19 virus
02:54
which are not present and other viruses
02:57
known to infect
02:58
humans it may be true that the rna
03:01
sequence
03:01
is present in the 19 virus but by no
03:05
means establishes covert 19 would be the
03:07
only reason why the particular rna
03:10
sequence could be present in a
03:12
living organism for example we have no
03:15
idea
03:16
how many viruses and other
03:17
microorganisms we have
03:19
in or on our bodies that are not yet
03:22
sequenced resulting in unknown
03:24
specificity of the test on face value
03:26
alone
03:27
john mackay simply echoes lumly but also
03:30
states that
03:31
multiple independent pcr tests confirm
03:33
the positive result
03:34
is due to sars 2 cov you’ll see in a
03:37
minute that this may be true in
03:39
controlled lab studies
03:41
but no claims can be established about
03:44
using the test to diagnose covert 19
03:46
in the community the pcr test is
03:50
and always has been an indirect test
03:52
aimed at detecting
03:54
a small sequence of rna because the
03:57
amount of rna is so
03:58
minuscule the test requires exponential
04:01
amplification and it’s even more
04:03
complicated when the rna comes from
04:06
living tissue where we are uncertain of
04:08
potential contaminants
04:10
any contamination such as other viruses
04:12
or debris from old virus genomes can
04:15
possibly result in
04:17
false positives it does not test for the
04:20
full
04:20
genome of an entity such as a virus and
04:23
it’s a big leap to conclude that a
04:25
positive pcr test in a living human
04:28
is always from one specific virus call
04:31
me a stickler
04:32
but where is the evidence can lumley or
04:34
mccain list
04:35
any studies that show a positive pcr
04:38
test is reliably correlated with
04:40
formal isolation of the virus as well as
04:42
a standardized covert 19 clinical
04:44
diagnosis
04:46
tackling the next point murdoch is
04:48
apparently unfazed by the lack of a gold
04:51
standard with regards to diagnosing
04:53
covert 19.
04:54
he makes a curious statement how do you
04:57
know how good it is
04:58
when it’s the best one this would imply
05:01
that you don’t need to worry
05:02
about scientific parameters such as
05:04
sensitivity and specificity in a
05:06
population setting
05:08
you simply use whatever test you’ve got
05:11
it seems that
05:12
the test validates itself therefore the
05:15
test
05:16
validates itself
05:18
[Music]
05:20
it’s just a little airborne it’s still
05:22
good it’s still good murdoch goes on
05:24
to compare copa19 pcr testing with
05:26
breast cancer screening
05:28
to imply that a pcr test can be used for
05:31
both
05:32
screening and diagnosis i find this to
05:34
be
05:35
an inappropriate comparison because with
05:37
breast cancer we have
05:39
decades of data involving millions of
05:41
people
05:42
comparative trials and established gold
05:44
standards
05:45
that is simply not the case with covert
05:48
19.
05:49
lumley states that the covert 19 pcr
05:51
test is an
05:52
excellent screening test but there is no
05:55
reference to any studies
05:56
involving patients that would back up
05:58
this claim
05:59
islamly making this claim based on a
06:02
laboratory study
06:04
one study is linked from the new zealand
06:06
ministry of health covert 19
06:08
test results in the accuracy web page
06:10
but
06:11
wait a minute these are in vitro lab
06:14
studies
06:15
not real clinical studies involving
06:17
patients the laboratory tests assist the
06:20
accuracy against
06:21
cultured viral stocks from a single
06:23
clinical isolate
06:24
and i’m not saying that the methodology
06:26
is incorrect but it is
06:28
in a controlled lab setting with
06:30
purified samples it in no way
06:33
establishes
06:34
the accuracy of the pcr test and real
06:36
patients in the community
06:38
to give credit the ministry of health
06:40
webpage states it’s important to
06:42
remember that tests don’t work as well
06:43
in the real world
06:45
but this is such a crucial point with a
06:47
covert pcr test
06:49
we have no idea of the magnitude of how
06:51
much they
06:52
don’t work in the real world i’ve seen
06:54
people claiming that the covert 19 pcr
06:57
test has 95
06:58
specificity yes a test kit correctly
07:01
detects covert 19 and purified lab
07:03
samples 95 of the time they don’t seem
07:07
to realize that the specificity in
07:09
diagnosing
07:10
covert 19 and new community cases
07:13
is completely unknown in fact
07:16
the manufacturers of the pcr test kits
07:19
usually have some sort of disclaimer
07:21
about what the test is suitable for an
07:24
example here is the real star pcr kit
07:26
from altona diagnostics
07:29
clearly stating for research use only
07:33
there are other videos on youtube
07:34
showing antibody test kit disclaimers
07:36
that read
07:37
not fda approved and that the test
07:40
results may be positive
07:41
due to non-covert 19 coronavirus strains
07:45
have any other authorities realize that
07:48
there are problems with testing for
07:50
cover 19.
07:51
on september 15th the australian
07:53
government department of health
07:55
released the following statement the
07:57
reliability of covert 19 tests is
08:00
uncertain
08:01
due to the limited evidence base lumley
08:03
goes on to state
08:04
that the antibody test is more reliable
08:07
in people
08:08
who have been symptomatic for several
08:10
days the antibody test
08:13
is another indirect test of viral
08:15
presence
08:16
but in this case of apparent past
08:18
exposure no study is referenced for us
08:20
to assess the reliability of antibody
08:23
testing
08:23
and how it should be applied at a
08:25
population level the ministry of health
08:27
has a fact sheet that talks about covert
08:30
19 antibody testing
08:32
but it is unreferenced generic in nature
08:34
and makes
08:35
no statement about test reliability
08:38
again the australian government have
08:39
recently made
08:41
comments on antibody testing there is a
08:44
window period between virus infection
08:47
and the production of igm and igg
08:49
antibodies and the sensitivity and
08:51
specificity of igm or igg antibody
08:54
tests early in sar’s cov2 infection
08:57
is not well characterized and perhaps
09:00
the most damning statement about the
09:03
current state of testing
09:05
covert 19 is an emerging viral
09:07
infectious disease
09:08
there is limited evidence available to
09:11
assess the accuracy
09:12
and clinical utility of available covert
09:15
19 tests
09:23
so why did i talk about the new surge in
09:26
cases in new zealand
09:29
the evidence available reveals that we
09:30
have no idea about how many false
09:33
positives there will be when pcr testing
09:35
is
09:36
used in the community at this stage the
09:38
clinical utility of the test
09:40
is unknown if you widely test
09:43
there will be positive results so how
09:46
do we interpret these at the end of the
09:49
day
09:50
i feel that many of the experts are
09:52
making overreaching claims about covert
09:55
testing
09:55
that is simply not backed up by medical
09:58
evidence
09:59
the onus is on them to provide this
10:01
evidence rather than criticize and
10:03
attempt to
10:04
silence those of us who remain skeptical
10:06
and want to engage
10:08
in open debate as always please give
10:10
this video a like if you found it
10:12
helpful
10:12
hit the subscribe button for new videos
10:15
every single week
10:16
and hit the bell to get notified when i
10:18
post new videos on tuesdays
10:20
please let me know in the comments what
10:23
your thoughts are
10:24
on this topic and feel free to watch my
10:27
other video on covert pcr tests if you
10:29
haven’t already seen it
10:31
see you again