It is important to make the difference between the method used to take the sample and the technology used to analyse it.
The sample can either be :
The method used for analysis can either be :
In France, the preferred technique for a COVID-19 diagnosis remains the RT-PCR one, whether the sample is nasopharyngeal or saliva.
F : FACTS
In January 2020, German Professor Christian Drosten created the first RT-PCR test (as for Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction) able to trace a SARS-CoV-2 infection. This rapidly became the diagnosis reference technique for this illness. However, during the following months, although many other methods were invented to trace the illness efficiently, very few were legalised. As far as Airlines are concerned, we can only deplore it. As well as concerning people reluctance to accept these tests.
Many people spoke up against these tests' reliability. indeed, Kary Mullis, who created them, had warned that an infection diagnosis could not only be made through them, but that it should be combined with a thorough examination of the patient. In May 2021, a Swedish study from the Swedish Agency for Public Health, established the ARN virus could often be detected during weeks (even months sometimes), following an infection ; which doesn't mean that you' re still contagious.
Another article published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases Review revealed that among the PCR test positive samples with a number of cycles superior to 35, only 3% showed a viral replication, which can be interpreted as followed : If a person' s PCR test is positive, whenever a Ct (amplification threshold) of 35 is used, their infection and contagiousness probability is less than 3%. In France, on certificates delivered by laboratories, the number of cycles used to make the test are not mentioned. Epidemiologist Laurent Toubiana, chairman of IRSAN, declared : « we're not experiencing a Covid epidemic, but a tests epidemic ». It seems that the liable threshold is 40 or 42, whereas the international community would rather take into account PCR tests with a threshold of less than 30. This graphics from the IHU in Marseille demonstrates perfectly that beyond a Ct35, it' s impossible to maintain a virus alive, only fragments of « dead » ARN can be found :
However, whether you like it or not, these tests have become compulsory in order to get a green pass, enabling free circulation and access to public places.
O : OPTIONS
R : RISKS / BENEFITS
D : DECISION
As a consequence of what we consider as a discrimination between vaccinated and non-vaccinated citizens, our corporation have decided to undertake a legal action in order to struggle against the sanitary pass, that we regard as a discriminatory measure, and against the end of the refunding of the autotests, considered as an assault on our freedom to work.
Based upon a note from the High Authority for Health note dated February, 4th 2021, mentioning that the use of nasopharyngeal tests on a regular basis was not recommended, our corporation would like to work with all those of good will, associations, legal experts or unions in order to fight the abusive measures taken by the French government regarding their Health Policy ; especially with the aim of getting free saliva tests or auto tests under supervision, whenever needed.
R : REVIEW
The early settlement of an industrial and massive tracing is the key for success in the struggle against the epidemic, as reference to a ternary strategy : « diagnose, isolate, treat ». The leaders used to be China, Germany, Iceland, South Korea, Australia, New-Zealand and Singapore. However, nearly two years later, it must be noted that this tracing method know as « contact tracing » has a limited effect against a rapidly mutating virus.
We also find that too many grey areas remain concerning the matter of PCR tests, about the method employed to test someone as well as the real liability of highly invasive, painful and potentially dangerous tests which, if taken too often, may lead to medical license loss of a crew member.
All those alerts and documents, coming from liable scientific studies, Health Organisations and / or Administration, or even articles issued from magazines specialised in our job specifics, give warnings about the real danger that those tests represent.