Last Updated on January 20, 2022 by Shaun Snapp
- A PCR test is run for several cycles.
- It is shocking to learn that even below 24 cycles will often find only dead viruses.
An enormous assumption of the covid pandemic has been that the PRC (Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction) tests were accurate. The tests were never accurate, which calls into question the overall pandemic. One part of this story is the number of amplification cycles the covid PRC test must be run for.
Our References for This Article
If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.
How the PCR Test Works
It is actually RT-PCR – a molecular biology technique which lets us detect parts of the viral RNA (the genetic information in some viruses is not stored as DNA but RNA). It is RT because it first converts (transcribes) RNA to DNA. It is necessary since only DNA can be multiplied (amplified) at the levels which can be detected by fluorescence. Every multiplication is called threshold cycle or Ct. Since the genetic information of SARS-CoV-2 is carried by RNA this is the only way to detect it. – State of the Nation
This is very interesting, and this quote also explains how it works.
PCR also made its mark in forensic science. “Prior to the development of the PCR, forensic scientists utilized very awkward and insensitive techniques” to identify people from DNA samples, says Bruce McCord, a professor of forensic chemistry at Florida International University. “The development of the PCR revolutionized forensic DNA testing. Suddenly there was no need for radioactivity or chemiluminescence-based detection, as the PCR could produce millions of copies of DNA from only a few cells.” – State of the Nation
This is a bit complex and easy to gloss over. The critical part of this quote (to me) is that the test requires amplification. So it is not like many other tests where you take blood or other fluids, and then the item is either present or not present.
This test requires an amplification algorithm before determining either true or false. Then there is a question of how many times you run the algorithm.
Now observe this quotation on the amplification cycles.
20 cycle threshold, 60% chance genetic material is viral and can be cultured. 30 cycles, 40% chance. 35, 3% chance. Past 35 is not even worthy. This viral genetic material, of course, is subject to the specificity. – Comment on John’s Hopkins Retractions
The FDA approved the PCR test being run between 35 and 40 cycles. It appears as if the FDA also desired positives.
Common Errors With the PCR Test: No Live Virus Found Even Below 24 Cycles
The bits of genetic material whose amount is being amplified ARE NOT viruses. They’re just small segments of inert genetic material found inside a virus’s shell. Without the shell, they don’t have any ability to infect a cell and reproduce. The PCR test doesn’t detect “live” viruses, at best it only detects their “remains.”
The detection of viral remains involves massively amplifying the amount in the original sample by running it through successive PCR cycles. And nothing about the PCR test itself will tell you if there was actually any “live” virus in the original sample.
But what the New York Times says about the unreliability of PCR testing also significantly understates how badly the cycling process is being abused to inflate the number of positive test results.
And it’s probably no coincidence that, had they been upfront about just how unreliable the data we’ve thus far gotten from PCR-testing is, they would have had a tough time claiming there was any justification for mass testing by other means.
One paper the CDC cites reports finding no “live” virus in any samples whose cycle threshold is greater than 24. And, even the CDC found a lot more samples that had no live virus than they did samples that did for cycle thresholds between 24 and 33.
Moreover, a pooled analysis of several different studies by a team of researchers at Oxford also concluded that positive PCR test results from samples with cycle thresholds over 24 shouldn’t be taken to indicate the presence of any actual virus.
Moreover, though that other research did at least sometimes find actual virus in some samples with cycle thresholds at or below 24, they still frequently found none. Meaning that, so far as the available research goes, positive PCR test results appear to never be very reliable regardless of how few amplification cycles are used.
But given that 30 cycles also appear to be way too much amplification, it’s likely that a lot more than just 90% were actually bogus. Who knows how few positive diagnoses would have been verified if they’d used the much lower 24 number of amplifying cycles recommended by the Oxford team and above which the other research cited by the CDC found no live virus.
Their article informs us that most testing companies run the samples they receive through 40 cycles. As we saw above, that means any genetic material in them is being multiplied over a trillion times. We’re told that a few companies run samples through only 37 cycles, which is still multiplying the amount of converted viral-RNA by a factor of almost 140 billion.
The CDC was hyping PCR tests for COVID before any of this research was even done. They were also using the results to compile data which they then used to scare the public and justify the never-before-seen widespread adoption of extreme measures to slow down its spread. – State of the Nation
It appears the best way of thinking of the PCR test is that it is useless. But what is also curious is how much the WHO knew about the PCR tests for covid. This was their recommendation early in the pandemic.
Besides that, previously, the WHO had recommended 45 “amplification” cycles of the test to determine whether someone was positive for COVID or not. – The Defender
So the answer to how much the WHO knew is “not much.”
This video explains that the PCR test is only useful at around 4 to 7 cycles. However, even this is hard to fathom as the PCR test was never trained on covid.
The Portugal and Austrian Courts Find Problems With Validity of PCR Tests
In an interesting number of cases where the PRC test has been taken to international courts, these courts have addressed the issues of the number of cycles and found the tests to be invalid, as is explained in the following quotation.
A Portuguese appeals court has ruled that PCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test.
The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that:
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the USA), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a ‘false positive’ is 97%.”
Similarly, the Austrian court has ruled that PCR tests are not suitable for CoV – 19 diagnosis and that lockdowns has no legal or scientific basis.
The court pointed out that “a PCR test is not suitable for diagnosis and therefore does not in itself say anything about the disease or infection of a person”. – Rights Freedom
For a while, we were all told that above 33 cycles and the viruses that were found were all dead. Naturally, the typical covid test was strangely set between 35 and 45 cycles. However, later it was learned that even below 24 cycles only results in dead viruses being found and those dead viruses being considered active.
The more one learns about the covid PCR test, the less reliable it appears.