False positive “viral loads” (aka PCR tests)

Those familiar with the controversy surrounding HIV and AIDS are no doubt aware of the multitude of problems with the so called “viral load” test for HIV RNA. As a brief explanation for those who are not, “viral load” tests became de rigueur in the clinical management of HIV positive individuals because they were popularized at the advent of “HAART” (“highly active antiretroviral therapy”), which itself came to being thanks to the infamous Ho/Wei papers from 1996. These papers have been roundly criticized - some including me would argue that they have been discredited entirely - even by mainstream mathematicians and scientists, but no matter. Their influence has not died.

One of the initial contradictions with HIV and AIDS was a big one. Despite the absolute devastation that occurred to the immune systems of patients with advanced AIDS, despite them (mostly) testing HIV positive on antibody tests, little to no viral material could be detected in any of the patients. Obviously, this is a problem for anyone with knowledge of traditional virology. Typically in order for a virus to cause harm, and especially for it to be infectious, there needs to be a lot of it there. This was a problem.

Enter viral load testing, which uses the PCR test to amplify RNA or DNA in a tissue or blood sample in order for it to be detected. Invented by Kary Mullis in the eighties, PCR testing has, rightly, revoluntionized crime scene investigation as well as other fields. However, those wily HIV scientists put their own twist on the PCR test. (This is becoming a theme.) Instead of using the test to detect viral RNA, they used it to count it.

This is a massive problem for the following reason. PCR testing amplifies RNA or DNA like a photocopier, except that every subsequent copy made actually produces twice the number of copies as the previous one - an exponential photocopier, if you would. When samples are being amplified 20-45 times, what we get at the end is 2^20 (that’s 2 to the power 20) to 2^45 times more genetic material than is actually there. But it is the end result that gets counted in viral load testing. You don’t even need high school mathematics to infer correctly that whatever number is being given to an HIV positive individual as their “viral load” is absolutely meaningless and is not what it claims to be. Mullis himself was strongly opposed to both HIV dogma and the use of PCR to quantify it. Also keep in mind that there is significant overlap between segments of the human genome and what is considered to be “HIV RNA”, and keep in mind that any debris or errors get amplified as well and you could be forgiven for wondering how they got away with using this test for this purpose.

Furthermore, PCR is not authorized for diagnosis of HIV because even a cursory glance at the medical literature reveals that positive PCR “viral load” tests are common in HIV negative individuals with no risk factors. Matt Irwin’s survey from 2001 provides the best overview of the myriad problems with “viral load” tests. From false positives of 100,000 to the fact that, at best, “viral load” results give a ratio of 1 potentially infectious viral particle per 10,000 “viral load” particles, to the fact that plenty of healthy HIV negative individuals test with a positive “HIV viral load”, it is clear that something is very wrong. Unfortunately, the test is so entrenched in the clinical management of HIV (indeed it is THE metric used to determine whether the patient’s treatment is effective) that it would take something greater than a huge controversy to change anything.

And this brings us back to Covid. Thanks to Covid, we now know what a PCR test does, and many of us are familiar with the false positive problem. At least with SARS-cov-2, no one is attempting to quantify anything. Be that as it may, PCR testing was never intended to be used for diagnosis of anything and its very nature renders it a suboptimal candidate to be used in diagnosis. I have watched in amusement as the rapid antigen tests were rolled out, and were so obviously terrible that they made the PCR test look good in comparison. It’s a neat trick - the public becomes wary of the PCR test due to the abundance of false positives so rather than actually improving their gold standard diagnostic test more reliable, a new test that was much worse was rolled out instead, and voila.

Ponder the implications of this. A test was invented that for many reasons is substandard to be used in diagnosis of any disease, said test was brought into regular use in both clinical HIV management and research despite the FDA (which isn’t exactly known for its restraint and rigor) explicitly not authorizing it for diagnosis of HIV. In 2020, the same test was brought into regular use as the gold standard for diagnosis of Covid and for quantifying the entire epidemic. No questions asked, no improvements made. We are measuring an entire pandemic using 25 year old biotechnology (because that’s what it is - biotechnology or biomedical engineering, but not science; there is no hint of the scientific method being used anywhere) that was on shaky ground 25 years ago. Something is very wrong here.