The below video was the second half of an interesting presentation by Dr. Clare Craig FRCPath at the recent Question Everything Lockdown Summit in London. The entire presentation can be viewed by clicking here starting at approximately the 1 min 6 min mark with Dr. Craig’s introduction.
Dr. Craig is a diagnostic pathologist. She was the day to day pathology lead for the cancer arm of the 100,000 Genomes Project. She was clinical lead for the data team and led on research and development projects at Genomics England and wrote national guidance and helped build bespoke software, working closely with NHSE.
In this half of her talk, she explains why the diagnostic tools and protocols used to diagnostic C-19 and classify deaths as due to C-19 were very flawed and led to drastic over counts. I’ve discussed these topics before as well, though not as eloquently, in regards to the US context in these two posts:
RT-PCR’s, cycle thresholds, and viral DNA
========================================- ========================================
Just as an example of how diagnostic tools may impact case and death counts, here are two similar scenarios using two different rt-PCR threshold sensitivity levels at 40 cycle thresholds [CT] and 30 CT.
Scenario 1 at 40 CT (greater sensitivity): A 67 year old male Medicare patient with chronic liver disease is admitted to a US hospital due to his disease. Despite having no C-19 symptoms, a universal C-19 screening rt-PCR test at 40 CT comes back PCR positive. Now he is a C-19 case and the hospital can reclassify him as a C-19 hospitalization and obtain via the CARES ACT an additional 20% Medicare reimbursement. Without ever being C-19 symptomatic, the man dies due to his liver disease. On Part 2 of the death certificate, C-19 is listed as being present at the time of death. Due to changes to Part 2 of how death certificates are recorded per “Report No. 3” issued by the CDC on 4/3/2020, C-19 is now considered a factor in the man’s death, So, overall this scenario is considered a C-19 case and death “including” C-19.
Scenario 2 at 30 CT (less sensitivity): A 67 year old male Medicare patient with chronic liver disease is admitted to a US hospital due to his disease. A universal C-19 screening rt-PCR test at 30 CT comes back PCR negative. The hospital cannot reclassify this admission as a C-19 hospitalization or obtain via the CARES ACT an additional 20% Medicare reimbursement. The man dies due to his liver disease. C-19 is not listed as being present at the time of death in Part 2. So, overall this scenario is a death due primarily to the liver disease and its sequelae as listed in Part 1 of the death certificate.
So the only real difference between these two scenarios is the CT level of the rt-PCR test. Now note too (as I’ve written about before) since May 1, 2021, the CDC has made 28 CT’s the level for diagnosing whether or not a case with a vaccinated person is or isn’t a “breakthrough case”. So had this same 28 CT level been used before for prior “cases” there’d be at least 60 percent fewer C-19 cases and a lot less deaths “including” C-19. Though this wouldn’t have been able to generate as much fear and acquiescent behavior, so maybe the case and death counts were hyped on purpose to facilitate acceptance of novel vaccine technologies. That’s just a “conspiracy” hypothesis…not a “theory”.
###
beyondspin 