Response to Comments on Kämmerer, et al. (2023) regarding RT-PCR Testing

U. Kämmerer, S. Pekova, R. Klement, Rogier Louwen, Peter Borger, Klaus Steger
{"title":"Response to Comments on Kämmerer, et al. (2023) regarding RT-PCR Testing","authors":"U. Kämmerer, S. Pekova, R. Klement, Rogier Louwen, Peter Borger, Klaus Steger","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.82","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Franchi and Tomsic (2023) correctly note that our review (Kämmerer et al., 2023) “has a clear focus on the technical aspect of RT-PCR, which is only one piece of the COVID-19 puzzle” and they ask for a more comprehensive discussion beyond our focus on the laboratory assay. They point to the lack of a specific definition of COVID-19 disease and conclude that, in order to test the first and the second of Koch’s postulates, there must be both a purified germ and a specified disease, neither of which was available for COVID-19. In reply, we address two questions they did not ask: 1. Are clinical symptoms induced by SARS-CoV-2 corroborated by RT-PCR? 2. Are Koch’s postulates valid for viruses? We assert that testing asymptomatic people is useless, whereas testing patients with clinical symptoms for a respiratory disease may enable a physician to confirm or reject a suspected diagnosis. Determining a diagnosis for any given patient is the physician’s challenge, while the researcher is responsible to show that the available tools are as near optimal as possible and to clarify the limitations of any such tools. Because there are no tools suitable for comprehensive and exclusive detection of infectious pathogens, we need to proceed carefully in applying the limited tools that do exist for tracing and tracking viral pathogens, to avoid under- or over-estimating a real or suspected pandemic.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.82","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Franchi and Tomsic (2023) correctly note that our review (Kämmerer et al., 2023) “has a clear focus on the technical aspect of RT-PCR, which is only one piece of the COVID-19 puzzle” and they ask for a more comprehensive discussion beyond our focus on the laboratory assay. They point to the lack of a specific definition of COVID-19 disease and conclude that, in order to test the first and the second of Koch’s postulates, there must be both a purified germ and a specified disease, neither of which was available for COVID-19. In reply, we address two questions they did not ask: 1. Are clinical symptoms induced by SARS-CoV-2 corroborated by RT-PCR? 2. Are Koch’s postulates valid for viruses? We assert that testing asymptomatic people is useless, whereas testing patients with clinical symptoms for a respiratory disease may enable a physician to confirm or reject a suspected diagnosis. Determining a diagnosis for any given patient is the physician’s challenge, while the researcher is responsible to show that the available tools are as near optimal as possible and to clarify the limitations of any such tools. Because there are no tools suitable for comprehensive and exclusive detection of infectious pathogens, we need to proceed carefully in applying the limited tools that do exist for tracing and tracking viral pathogens, to avoid under- or over-estimating a real or suspected pandemic.
对Kämmerer等人(2023)关于RT-PCR检测的评论的回应
Franchi和Tomsic(2023)正确地指出,我们的综述(Kämmerer等人,2023)“明确关注RT-PCR的技术方面,这只是COVID-19难题的一部分”,他们要求进行更全面的讨论,而不仅仅是我们对实验室分析的关注。他们指出,缺乏对COVID-19疾病的具体定义,并得出结论,为了检验Koch的第一项和第二项假设,必须同时存在纯化的细菌和特定的疾病,而这两者都不适用于COVID-19。作为答复,我们提出了他们没有提出的两个问题:RT-PCR是否证实了SARS-CoV-2诱导的临床症状?2. 科赫的假设对病毒有效吗?我们认为,对无症状的人进行检测是无用的,而对有临床症状的呼吸系统疾病患者进行检测,可能使医生能够确认或拒绝疑似诊断。对任何给定的病人作出诊断是医生的挑战,而研究人员有责任表明可用的工具尽可能接近最佳,并澄清任何此类工具的局限性。由于没有适合全面和专门检测传染性病原体的工具,我们需要谨慎地应用现有的有限工具来追踪和跟踪病毒性病原体,以避免低估或高估真正的或疑似的大流行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信