I was curious, so on 20 December 2020 I asked the Premier and the Health Minister some questions about the PCR testing regime in the Australian state where I live, New South Wales.

Essentially I was curious to know whether and how Ct values are being taken into consideration when interpreting PCR test results. If you don’t know what Ct values are about, or even what PCR testing actually is, the best explanation I’ve come across is by Dr Sam Bailey, which you can watch here.

I also asked why there is no information about the nature and the limitations of PCR testing in the public arena, and I asked whether the state was aware of certain publications that suggest that PCR testing is highly problematic. My letter is reproduced at the end of this article.

On 6 Jan 2021 I received a reply from Stephen Braye, the Chief Medical Information Officer and Executive Director Statewide Clinical Services.

The reply was a little underwhelming in that it did not address all my questions. I guess the state does not want to admit to knowing of the existence of material that is critical of PCR testing in case there are legal consequences further down the track.

But at least I now know and want to share the following information:

• all positive results undergo confirmatory retesting before publication, preferably using different testing systems, and new positive persons are retested by collecting a second PCR sample. Serology blood test and sometimes viral culture is also performed, and sometimes whole genome sequencing may be done;
• all tests are done testing for 2 or more gene targets in each test (E, N1, N2, RdRp2, RdRp4, Orf8, Orf1 and S genes)
• there are 30 different combinations of machines and systems used in Australia, all to NPAAC standards assessed by NATA;
• generally, the number of Ct cycles run by PCR systems is 45, depending on the machine and assay used;
• the Ct cut-off threshold is set at 40 cycles, but this is influenced also by manufacturer instructions and required validation processes. 

Considering that even the famed Dr Fauci says that a threshold over 35 cycles is too high, and he’s clearly not the only one saying so, we would be justified in asking why NSW Health is using such high CT thresholds.

---

My letter to Premier Gladys Berejiklian and Health Minister Brad Gazzard:

Re: PCR testing in NSW

I am a concerned citizen with some specific questions regarding PCR testing done in NSW. The data that is publicly available on your website does not answer my questions.

Question 1:

Is the following data in relation to all reported test results collected and collated in the one database along with the personal data of the persons being tested, and is there a requirement that this data is supplied to you by the testing centres and laboratories?

The name of the testing station

The name of the laboratory

The name of all personnel who interacted with the tested persons

The name of the testing kit used 

The cycle threshold (Ct) value that was applied

All the gene sequences tested for each sample (E, N, RdRp)

Question 2:

Do you acknowledge that it is of fundamental importance for the interpretation of PCR tests to collect the data referred to in Question 1, in particular to ensure that we are not dealing with a test pandemic of false positives (given the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in the community must be very low) or contamination issues?

Question 3:

In the event that samples are only tested for one gene, are laboratories required to test for other genes before they report a positive result?

Question 4:

Why are you referring to people who merely tested positive as “cases”? Do you not think this is a misleading characterisation, given a PCR test does nothing more than indicate that matter with certain gene sequences is present in a person’s body, and a PCR test is not in itself a diagnosis of anything and says nothing about the state of health or infectiousness of a person? I refer to the CDC’s definition of a “case” here: https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section5.html

Question 5:

In light of this, do you agree it would be better to refer to positive test results in your publicised statistics as “positive test results” or “people tested positive”?

Question 6:

In light of the above, do you not think it is your duty to inform the public and the media about the nature and limitations of PCR tests?

Question 7:

Are you aware of the following article which fundamentally questions the validity of the WHO-supported Corman/Drosten PCR test protocol? https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

Question 8:

Are you aware of the WHO’s own media release of 14 December 2020? https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users

Question 9:

Are you aware of the Portuguese court of appeal decision which was highly critical of PCR testing? https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2020-11-27/covid-pcr-test-reliability-doubtful-portugal-judges/56962

I look forward to your response.