Many Things That Are Wrong With PCR Test/Quick Covid Testing And Question If SARS-CoV-2 Virus Was Isolated, Purified And Proven To Cause The Disease (Part 1)
The COVID-19 Test Wasn’t Meant For Detecting Viruses
https://docnutrients.com/the-covid-19-test-wasnt-meant-for-detecting-viruses/
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is currently the most commonly used COVID-19 test globally. PCR was invented by Kary Mullis in 1985 and in the early 1990’s, PCR, came into popular use. Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 1993. PCR, simply put, is a thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, making it large enough to study. but it was not invented with the purpose of detecting disease, it’s primary intended applications included biomedical research and criminal forensics. It is a tool can be extremely deceptive in the diagnosis of infectious diseases and the inventor himself argued against using PCR as a diagnostic tool for infections.
This is the main reason why Mullis disagreed with the scientists who are behind the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. He defied the mainstream notion that “the disease-causing mechanisms of HIV are simply too “mysterious” to comprehend. According to him, “The mystery of that damn virus has been generated by the $2 billion a year they spend on it. You take any other virus, and you spend $2 billion, and you can make up some great mysteries about it too.” He also added that, “Human beings are full of retrovirus. We don’t know if it is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. We’ve only recently started to look for them. But they’ve never killed anybody before. People have always survived retroviruses.”
“I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine,” warns Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer.
This technology is what they use today to test for the so-called coronavirus, said to be the cause of a disease which the health authorities such as the World Health Organizations (WHO) vaguely and inconsistently defined or identified. Mullis is among the many scientists who bravely question the narrative of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Mullis did not believe what the mainstream science is claiming that the HIV retrovirus is causing the AIDS disease. He was an important member of the “Group for the Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, the 500-member protest organization pushing for a re-examination of the cause of AIDS”. According to him on his 1992 Spin interview, “PCR made it easier to see that certain people are infected with HIV and some of those people came down with symptoms of AIDS. But that doesn’t begin even to answer the question, ‘Does HIV cause it?'”
According to Mullis himself, PCR cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.” This is the main reason why Mullis disagreed with the scientists who are behind the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. He defied the mainstream notion that “the disease-causing mechanisms of HIV are simply too “mysterious” to comprehend. According to him, “The mystery of that damn virus has been generated by the $2 billion a year they spend on it. You take any other virus, and you spend $2 billion, and you can make up some great mysteries about it too.” He also added that, “Human beings are full of retrovirus. We don’t know if it is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. We’ve only recently started to look for them. But they’ve never killed anybody before. People have always survived retroviruses.”
“I think misuse PCR is not quite, I don’t think you can misuse PCR. The results, the interpretation of it, if they could find this virus in you at all, and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else. Right, I mean, because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something which you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body, okay. So that could be thought of as a misuse of it, just to claim that it’s meaningful.”
“It’s [PCR] just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
-Kary Mullis
Watch videos of Karry Mullis:
What Inventor Kary Mullis Says About PCR Testing - Some Take Away Lessons For Covid-19
The PCR Test Inventor Stated They Can Not & Should Not Be Used To Diagnose A Virus ‼️‼️ - Dr. Kary Mullis
PCR Test - False Positives
The PCR test is so well known for giving inaccurate results that the CDC warns not to give the test to asymptomatic persons “because of the increased likelihood of false-positive results.” In fact, there is a famous Chinese paper that stated if you’re testing asymptomatic people with PCR, up to 80% of positives could be false positives.
https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1125411897
But the numbers aren’t just skewed by false positives, they are also skewed by how many people are offered the test and what condition they are in. For example, during the first few weeks of the ‘pandemic’ tests were scarce. As they became more widely available of course the number of infections accounted for increased as well, and false-positive results further increased those numbers.
With regards to the current coronavirus crisis, which some believed to be deceptively manufactured and engineered, this situation of the HIV-AIDS phenomena that Kary Mullis decries about is not far or different. However, the reaction of the authorities today globally is more severe while also tragically preposterous as they put up policies and protocols that are obviously violating the citizen’s constitutional rights while also destroying the economy, making life miserable and harder for ordinary people that even several police officers across the US, for example, reacted and complained.
To learn more about why this crisis is ridiculously based on faulty “science”, let’s hear what other experts say about the coronavirus testing.
According to Jason Hommel, a prolific writer and researcher and also the author of the very important article regarding coronavirus testing entitled “Scientists Say the COVID19 Test Kits Do Not Work, Are Worthless, and Give Impossible Results” (https://revealingfraud.com/2020/03/health/test-kits-do-not-work/ ):
“PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e., bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome. The problem is the test is known not to work. It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously, any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery. Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.”
Meanwhile, according to Celia Farber, the author of “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS” and a researcher whose work about socialism, pharmaceutical industry, mass media manipulation, and most especially, the HIV-AIDS topic has made her gained an award fo investigative journalism. She is also the editor of The Truth Barrier, an investigative and literary website and co-hosts “The Whistleblower Newsroom” with Kristina Borjesson on PRN:
“One of the countless head-spinning mysteries of this whole Corona Situation has been the advent of famous people, from Tom Hanks and his wife, to Sophie Trudeau, to Prince Charles announcing they had “tested positive” for COVID-19 and were self-quarantining. In all these famous-powerful people cases, the symptoms were either non-existent or mild. Why, one wondered, did they make such hay about it? The British Royals, especially, seemed to contradict their ethos of secrecy in this case. So what did it mean? It signaled, if anything, that COVID-19 is not all that deadly. That the virus can be present without causing the disease. That host factors matter. And that being “positive” for COVID-19 is neither a PR death sentence nor an actual death sentence. Maybe in their elite and esoteric language, it means some kind of prestige, or sacrament to a Pagan Virus Deity. Who knows? In the case of the Trudeau, Sophie tested positive, and had symptoms, while her husband Justin, the Prime Minister, never got sick, and was never tested. (He didn’t want to appear privileged; Not everybody can get tested in Canada, you must have symptoms.)”
On the other hand, from an article also by Celia Farber, David Crowe, “a Canadian researcher with a degree in biology and mathematics and host of “The Infectious Myth” podcast, also the president of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS, also clearly explained the problems with the PCR based coronavirus testing, “revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery”:
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”
He continued:
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique. You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”
Regarding Kary Mullis’ intention for the PCR, this is what he said:
“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique. Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”
He went on to say:
“I don’t think they understand what they’re doing; I think it’s out of control. They don’t know how to end this. This is what I think what happened: They have built a pandemic machine over many years and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not long before this whole thing started.”
Meanwhile, also from interview by Celia Farber, Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist, protease developer and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics, stated:
“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it. You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms”
Asked by Farber what his advice for people who want to be tested for COVID-19, he replied:
“Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me. No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable. Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us. They’re not just looking for the virus. Please put that in your article.”
He added:
“PCR for diagnosis is a big problem. When you have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it’s going to generate massive amounts of false positives. Again, I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true.”
Lack Of A Valid Gold Standard - From the article titled: “COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless “- https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/:
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” [1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
NOT FDA/MHRA/EMA Approved
One of the brands of test kits used in UK and in Malta is MWE (Medical Wire & Equipment).
What is interesting to note is that if you click on any links below the picture and you try to download for example >>View Independent studies – you get to blank page which shows following:
So basically company does not offer any details on Independent studies, Product insert (very important so we can see what preservatives it contains and if its toxic, what side effects are there etc) or Literature – so nothing is available which is very important to inform us about.
This test is not FDA/MHRA/EMA approved and all they have is CE certificate (to prove quality) – so not approved by these institutions that would guarantee their review to provide benefits that outweigh its known and potential risks for the intended population.
(Same fact that Dr Stefano Scolio emphasized – problem with PCR tests used have only CE certification)
And this is what FDA is compared to CE:
“FDA approval always requires a full clinical trial or trials, whereas the CE Mark can be obtained through a clinical evaluation—a review of published data for existing equivalent devices. For a clinical evaluation, the only requirement is that the manufacturer conduct a postmarket clinical follow-up study once the CE Mark is obtained. However, this type of study is much easier to get approval for and therefore much less expensive to conduct than a clinical trial
The CE Mark is recognized almost globally—in addition to being valid in all countries of the European Union. By comparison, FDA approval is valid only in the United States. For this reason, it is more attractive to companies to apply for the CE Mark first. Having said that, FDA clinical trials are high-quality studies, so they do represent important milestones in the progression of scientific research in refractive surgery.”
How they Stack Up
CE Mark
• Main function is to assess the safety and efficacy of new devices
• Obtained through a clinical evaluation of published data for existing equivalent devices
• Requires a postmarket clinical follow-up study once the CE Mark is obtained
• Valid in all EU countries and recognized almost globally
• Puts more onus on and endues a greater amount of trust to the manufacturer and to the physician compared with the FDA approval system
• Allows new technology to more quickly become available to patients compared with the FDA approval system
• Leaves safety and efficacy of the surgical procedure that is performed by the device to the responsibility of the physicians and surgeons who use the device
FDA Approval
• Main function is to assess the safety and efficacy of new devices
• Requires a full clinical trial or trials
• Narrow approved range of parameters
• Valid only in the United States
• More expensive to obtain compared with CE Mark, as the documentation required from investigators is much less efficient, the review cycle is about three times longer, and there are almost always more rounds of questions
• Indicates that strict criteria have been met, signifying that clinical application of a drug or device will be safe and effective
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t”.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html )
· Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing. For two weeks starting in mid-April last year, she coughed, seemingly nonstop, followed by another week when she coughed sporadically, annoying, she said, everyone who worked with her
· Before long, Dr. Kathryn Kirkland, an infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth, had a chilling thought: Could she be seeing the start of a whooping cough epidemic?
· With pertussis, she said, “there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,” and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. “We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,” Dr. Kretsinger added.
· Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.
“The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,” Dr. Petti said.“No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R.”As for Dr. Herndon, though, she now knows she is off the hook.
“I thought I might have caused the epidemic,” she said.
Watch video mentioning the same article:
Faith in Quick Tests (PCR) Lead to FALSE Epidemic - Incredible New York Times Article from 2007
The PCR test will pick up a virus, if it's present, approximately on 10 cycles.
“The lower the number of cycles, the more of the virus is present,” Dr. William W. Li, an internationally renowned physician, scientist, and author of New York Times bestseller “Eat to Beat Disease: The New Science of How Your Body Can Heal Itself,” told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview. “The higher the number of cycles needed to pick up signs of the virus, the less is present.”
The French were criticised for using around 25 cycles earlier in the year as it was causing so many false positives. Remember, a virus will show in approximately on 10 cycles. More cycles and amplification will show things that aren't there.
The UK government is using... 45 CYCLES!!
So in other words, each cycle amplifies the DNA to pick up the virus. Anything above approximately 20 cycles and you are in absolute false positive zone. The NHS is using 45 cycles and W.H.O recommends 50 cycles!!! Let that sink in
Watch a video :
Fauci Admits Any Positive Test Above 35 Cycles Is A False Positive - The US Routinely Uses 42-45 Cycles
Papaya and goat test positive for COVID-19 in Tanzania
And who can forget Tanzanian President John Magufuli who managed to put the coronavirus narrative to the test by sending in samples of fruits, animals, car oil, and other random objects under assumed names to test the test itself. The result? “Elizabeth Ane” the Pawpaw fruit was positive for coronavirus, as were goats and other fruits.
He tested the test and exposed it for what it is.
Make no mistake, Magufuli details how the samples were not simply taken from the surface of the fruit. He knew that if the sample tested positive, it would be claimed that someone who was positive for coronavirus touched and contaminated the fruit. To be certain, they took precaution to sample the fruits, animals, and car oil in the correct way so that no claim of contamination could hold any weight. He also makes clear that the laboratory in question is their best and its results are widely accepted for other diseases. They are trained professionals.
It is also worth noting that John Magufuli was an industrial chemist prior to becoming President of Tanzania. His high position, background in chemistry, and distrust of (and geographical distance from) western medicine left him in a unique position to test whether the coronavirus test results could be trusted. In the end, his gambit provided some of the best and only evidence to prove what has been long suspected by coronavirus dissenters: the coronavirus test is worthless.
Watch the video of his speech:
Austrian lawmaker tests cola for Covid and claims POSITIVE result returned shows testing is ‘worthless’
An Austrian lawmaker carried out a quick coronavirus test on a glass of cola during a fiery speech accusing the government of medical tyranny. After a few minutes, the test results came back positive.
He described the tests as “worthless” and said publicly funded Covid-19 testing was a “massive redistribution of tax money in the direction of the pharmaceutical industry.” He went on to accuse the government of “dictatorship light,” claiming “Austrians have been deprived of their basic rights, such as their civil liberties and the right to freedom of expression,” during the health crisis. The lawmaker said Covid-19 restrictions have led to bankruptcies, mass unemployment, and social and economic crises, and have “robbed” children of their education.
Video:
Austrian MP Demonstrated In Parliament Even A Can Of Coke Tests Positive On Covid Test
· CONCERNS
Rapid roll out of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing: even at high levels of specificity, an important proportion of test results will be false positives
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2910
Rapid roll out of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing—a concern
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2420
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. - The New York Times article
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
Lockdowns are based on fraud: open letter to people who want freedom (Taken from : https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/03/lockdowns-are-based-on-fraud-open-letter-to-people-who-want-freedom/ )
by Jon Rappoport
(Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, Jon Rappoport has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe, and know what he's talking about when he serves his fact-based views and warnings about the Harmful Effects of the new 5G Technology)
December 3, 2020
This article is arranged so you see the fraud in more detail as you read further.
QUICK OVERVIEW:
The lockdowns are based on high levels of COVID cases.
“We have so many new cases, we have to lock down.”
This claim is based on the diagnostic PCR test.
The more tests you do, the more positive results come up. A positive result is taken to mean: the person is infected with the virus.
But overwhelmingly, these so-called “infected” people have no symptoms. They are healthy. Nevertheless, each one is called a “COVID case.” This is absurd.
A case should mean the person has clinical symptoms; he is sick.
These people aren’t sick, and there is no indication they will get sick.
So…expand testing, test millions of people, obtain results claiming “infection,” call all these healthy people “cases,” and order lock downs.
This is a straight-out con. The real goal is lockdowns and economic devastation.
IS THE PCR TEST DECEPTIVE?
You need one piece of background here.
The PCR test is run in “cycles.” Each cycle is a quantum leap in amplifying or magnifying the original tiny, tiny piece of material taken from the patient’s swab sample. It’s like blowing up a small photo to an amazing size.
The question is: how many cycles should the PCR test be run at? This is vital issue, because the number of cycles changes the result.
July 16, 2020, podcast, “This Week in Virology” [1]: Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.
Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at about the 4-minute mark [1]): “…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.
That’s called a false positive.
What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.
Therefore, all labs in the US that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because…
Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and…
The total number of COVID cases in America—which is based on the test—is a gross falsity.
The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.
Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles, in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell.
If anyone in the White House has a few brain cells to rub together, pick up a giant bullhorn and start revealing the truth to the American people.
“Hello, America, you’ve been tricked, lied to, conned, and taken for a devastating ride. On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”
If anyone in the Congress has a few brain cells operating, pull Fauci into a televised hearing and, in ten minutes, make mincemeat out of the fake science that has driven this whole foul, stench-ridden assault on the US economy and its citizens.
All right, here are two chunks of evidence for what I’ve written above. First, we have a CDC quote on the FDA website, in a document titled: “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only.” (https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download ) [2] See pdf page 38 (doc page 37). This document is marked, “Effective: 12/01/2020.” That means, even though the virus is being referred to by its older name, the document is still relevant as of Dec 2020. “For Emergency Use Only” refers to the fact that the FDA has certified the PCR test under a traditional category called “Emergency Use Authorization.”
FDA: “…a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCoV [virus] if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles ([less than] 40.00 Ct).”
Naturally, MANY testing labs reading this guideline would conclude, “Well, to see if the virus is there in a patient, we should run the test all the way to 40 cycles. That’s the official advice.”
A disastrous inference.
Then we have a New York Times article (August 29/updated September 17) headlined: “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” [3] Here are money quotes:
“Most tests set the limit at 40 [cycles]. A few at 37.”
“Set the limit” would usually mean, “We’re going to look all the way to 40 cycles, to see if the virus is there.”
The Times: “This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients…”
Boom. That’s the capper, the grand finale. Labs don’t or won’t reveal their collusion in this crime.
Get the picture?
IS THE PCR TEST USEFUL AND MEANINGFUL?
Now let’s go to published official literature and see what it reveals. Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.
From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only.” [2]:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.” (doc page 40)
Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.
From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”:
“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”
Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.
The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”
Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.
From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [5]:
“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”
Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.
From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [6]:
“This product is for research use only and is not intended for diagnostic use.”
Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.
“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”
Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.
“Application Qualitative”
Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. That’s another indication that the test is useless for determining whether the patient is ill—since millions and millions of virus must be present, in order to produce illness.
“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”
Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.
Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.
CONCLUSION: The PCR test is useless and deceptive. It provides de facto dictators the opportunity to cite “new case levels” and lock down populations, creating economic and human devastation.
RESIST, REBEL, PROTEST, OPEN UP THE ECONOMY ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN.
SOURCES:
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE
[2] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
[3] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20200301092906/http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance (for http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance)
[5] https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download
[6] https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/pdf/CD019RT.pdf
Some interesting videos related to PCR testing:
Profs Dr. Beda Stadler - PCR Test Cannot Tell If You Have A Virus Or Some Dead Chunk Of Virus
Why Everyone Could Test Positive For Covid 19? - Dr Rashid A Buttar
Dr Corbett Explains Why The PCR Test Is Useless
Doctor Speaking Out - The Fact That Labs Are Faking Test!!!
Man Requests Covid19 Test, Sends It Back WITHOUT Using It....He Tests POSITIVE
Covid Testing Fraud Uncovered - The HighWire with Del Bigtree
Sources:
https://docnutrients.com/the-covid-19-test-wasnt-meant-for-detecting-viruses/
https://bestarticle.net/the-truth-about-pcr-test-kit-from-the-inventor-and-other-experts-6581.html
https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html
https://www.mwe.co.uk/microbiology-lab-supplies/culture-swabs-liquid/sigma-vcm-nasopharyngeal-mw919s
https://crstodayeurope.com/articles/2015-feb/ce-mark-versus-fda-approval-which-system-has-it-right/
https://principia-scientific.com/covid-test-scam-cycle-threshold-values-being-deliberately-omitted/
https://www.rt.com/news/509377-austria-mp-test-cola-covid-positive/
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/pcr/
To understand more about PCR, we suggest you read more of Celia Farber’s article here:
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus
References:
https://revealingfraud.com/2020/03/health/test-kits-do-not-work/
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/blog/coronavirus-hoax-jan-2020
