Last Updated on January 20, 2022 by Shaun Snapp
- For close to two years the PCR test was used to tell the public how many covid cases there were.
- These tests were never reliable.
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.
Our References for This Article
If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.
The Reality of the PCR Tests
The PCR test is explained by
COVID-19 statistics is part of our everyday life. We wake up with COVID-19 and go to bed with COVID-19. We constantly hear that despite so-called COVID-19 measures there is an increase in cases and infections.
From the beginning, the assumption was that there is a reliable test for covid. I write this in November of 2021, and I do not recall the accuracy of testing being covered by the establishment media since the pandemic began. Everyone I speak to has no idea the covid test is not reliable. And I will get into the problematic timeline regarding the covid tests further on in the article.
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.
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 desired also positives.
The article How the Fake Covid Fact Checker Reuters Does Not Disclose Pfizer Financial Connections describes how major media entities have financial ties to companies that they defend in faux fact-checking articles. Furthermore, Twitter and Google will de-platform people that publish or discuss the topic of Reuter’s financial ties to Pfizer.
What Does the PCR Test Tell Us?
What can the PCR test tell about the virus?
The PCR test can tell if there are some parts of the viral RNA in the cell.
What PCR test can’t tell us about the virus?
It can’t tell if there is an active virus.
So…then what is the point of the test?
I will address this later, but the point appears to have been to exaggerate the number of cases to create a pandemic.
How Sensitive is the PCR Test?
Yes. The tests are very sensitive and can detect traces of the viral RNA. Healthy people but with positive test means that the person’s immunity destroyed the virus. This person can’t infect other people and doesn’t need to be quarantined. The main problem with mass use of a sensitive test is that it can be contaminated rather easy. Since the technique is specific and only few people are familiar with it, test companies hire people who have little or even no training to do the sampling and testing. Keep in mind that RT-PCR can detect even one RNA molecule. It means that every step from taking the sample to performing the test must be in a sterile environment to avoid contamination. That obviously isn’t possible. Tests could be contaminated by viral RNA from the handler’s breath even when using a mask.
And this quotation from Doctors 4 Covid Ethics.
In summary, a positive RT-qPCR test result cannot be accepted as proof that the person in question is currently infected and infectious—even if there is reasonable clinical plausibility of actual COVID-19 infection, as well as a significant community prevalence of the disease. Firstly, the RNA material containing the target sequences could very well be from nonviable/inactive virus; this is particularly likely if the patient in question has already recovered from the infection.
So this means a positive test will be yielded when the virus is dead. The test cannot distinguish between a live and dead virus.
Furthermore, the PCR test is not designed for general usage at hospitals.
How Was the PCR Test for Covid Developed
The actual quotes on the development of the PCR test for covid are quite shocking.
“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.” 
Developing a Test Without a Sample of the Virus
The PCR test was developed without a covid sample. This is simply amazing that it is not more widely covered.
- How can any of these PCR tests have any accuracy claim whatsoever if they never had the actual virus?
- How did the test developers know that the tests were effective?
- How were the tests tested?
This topic is covered in the article Why Is There Such a Problem Isolating The Covid Virus?
Technical Problems With the PCR Test
Even Christian Drosten admitted himself in a German Article in 2014 the very problem of RT-qPCR tests in a pandemic or epidemic scenario:
“The method is so sensitive that it can detect a single genetic molecule of the virus. If, for example, such a pathogen flies over the nasal mucous membrane of a nurse for a day without them becoming ill or noticing anything, then it is suddenly a MERS case. Where previously terminally ill were reported, now suddenly mild cases and people who are actually very healthy are included in the reporting statistics. This could also explain the explosion in the number of cases in Saudi Arabia.” 
Reliable and accurate PCR-test protocols are normally designed using between 100 nM and 200 nM per primer . In the Corman-Drosten paper, we observe unusually high and varying primer concentrations for several primers (table 1). For the RdRp_SARSr-F and RdRp_SARSr-R primer pairs, 600 nM and 800 nM are described, respectively. Similarly, for the N_Sarbeco_F and N_Sarbeco_R primer set, they advise 600 nM and 800 nM, respectively .
It should be clear that these concentrations are far too high to be optimal for specific amplifications of target genes. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. Rather, these concentrations lead to increased unspecific binding and PCR product amplification.
No reason if Drosten wanted an accurate test, but a good reason if he wanted a test that produced false positives.
A Test That Cannot Be Reproduced and is Not Repeatable
To obtain reproducible and comparable results, it is essential to distinctively define the primer pairs. In the Corman-Drosten paper we observed six unspecified positions, indicated by the letters R, W, M and S (Table 2). The letter W means that at this position there can be either an A or a T; R signifies there can be either a G or an A; M indicates that the position may either be an A or a C; the letter S indicates there can be either a G or a C on this position.
This high number of variants not only is unusual, but it also is highly confusing for laboratories.
The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related. Therefore, the confusing unspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol. These unspecified positions should have been designed unequivocally.
These wobbly sequences have already created a source of concern in the field and resulted in a Letter to the Editor authored by Pillonel et al.  regarding blatant errors in the described sequences. These errors are self-evident in the Corman et al. supplement as well.
And this quote from Dr. Lidiya Angelova.
PCR test study was performed without a sample of a potential infected person. It means that the laboratories which perform the test must use the exact same reagents and perform the test in the exact the same way.
The PCR test study wasn’t made with a real sample so when implemented on real samples the result may be differ. The technique which is used is not only complicated, and requires well trained personnel but also is very sensitive.
However, the way around the fact that the test is not repeatable, is to only run the PCR test once. With only one test run there is no risk of conflicting results.
Dr. Angelova continues.
It was sitting in the back in my mind bugging me off until I got it – results from the tests aren’t repeatable. Labs don’t run the same samples at least 3 times to avoid random error. If 2 of the samples show same result it is valid. Running the sample only one time means that the result could be an error which due to the reasons mentioned above is quite likely. It is one of the most simple rules to clinical and experimental sciences.
A Test That Can’t Distinguish Between Coronaviruses
The E gene primers also detect a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.
The genome of the coronavirus is the largest of all RNA viruses that infect humans and they all have a very similar molecular structure. Still, SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 have two highly specific genetic fingerprints, which set them apart from the other coronaviruses. First, a unique fingerprint-sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) is present in the N-protein of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 [13,14,15].
Second, both SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV2 do not contain the HE protein, whereas all other coronaviruses possess this gene [13, 14]. So, in order to specifically detect a SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 PCR product the above region in the N gene should have been chosen as the amplification target.
Here is what the CDC says about the ability of the PCR test.
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
So once again, how many of those test results that said “covid” were actually covid?
Another issue with the covid PCR tests is found in the article The PCR Test Problems: How There is Often No Live Virus Found Below 24 Cycles.
A Test Without Standard Operating Procedures or Parameters
There should be a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) available, which unequivocally specifies the above parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries. It is very important to specify all primer parameters unequivocally. We note that this has not been done. Further, the Ct value to indicate when a sample should be considered positive or negative is not specified. It is also not specified when a sample is considered infected with SARS-CoV viruses. As shown above, the test cannot discern between virus and virus fragments, so the Ct value indicating positivity is crucially important. This Ct value should have been specified in the Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) and put on-line so that all laboratories carrying out this test have exactly the same boundary conditions. It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation. Laboratories all over Europe are left with a multitude of questions; which primers to order? which nucleotides to fill in the undefined places? which Tm value to choose? How many PCR cycles to run? At what Ct value is the sample positive? And when is it negative? And how many genes to test? Should all genes be tested, or just the E and RpRd gene as shown in Table 2 of the Corman-Drosten paper? Should the N gene be tested as well? And what is their negative control? What is their positive control?
This is amazing. How did this test ever get put into general use?
Mistakes Any Molecular Biologist Could Have Caught
Any molecular biologist familiar with RT-PCR design would have easily observed the grave errors present in the Corman-Drosten paper before the actual review process. We asked Eurosurveillance on October 26th 2020 to send us a copy of the peer review report. To date, we have not received this report and in a letter dated November 18th 2020, the ECDC as host for Eurosurveillance declined to provide access without providing substantial scientific reasons for their decision. On the contrary, they write that “disclosure would undermine the purpose of scientific investigations.”
A Rigged Publication and Conflicts of Interest
A final point is one of major concern. It turns out that two authors of the Corman-Drosten paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, are also members of the editorial board of this journal . Hence there is a severe conflict of interest which strengthens suspicions that the paper was not peer-reviewed. It has the appearance that the rapid publication was possible simply because the authors were also part of the editorial board at Eurosurveillance. This practice is categorized as compromising scientific integrity.
We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted ; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there  and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.
A Test Which Can’t be Used
RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis. These are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.
More on this topic is found in the following quotation.
Mike Adams Had This to Say About PCRT Testing
“I run multiple mass spec instruments in my private lab, including QQQ and ICP-MS instruments. I am the co-developer of two quantitative methods that were painstakingly developed for quantitating glyphosate molecules in food, and for cannabinoid concentrations in hemp extracts. I am intimately familiar with instrument calibration, external standards, curve fit equations and quantitative analysis. PCR instruments are not capable of any of this. They are useless for diagnosing infectious disease, as they cannot produce viral load concentration results from a given sample.” – Rights Freedom
Can Any Test Correctly Perceive Covid?
None of the tests can tell if someone is sick i.e. has the disease COVID-19. All tests have only emergency use authorization which means coronavirus tests as the vaccines aren’t validated by a government agency.
Hmmm…so we do not have and have never had a test to determine if someone has covid — while there has been enormous focus on the aggregated numbers of cases that were accumulated through tests that do not work.
Antibody Test: Also Does not Work
This kind of test shows if you have antibodies against the virus. It could be used as a proof that you are already immune to coronavirus but could react to the other four common cold coronaviruses (cross-reactivity). Antibody test cannot tell if you currently have a virus. This test as the PCR should not be used to put someone in quarantine.
I do not think this test is used, but it also shows that it cannot be used.
Rapid Antigen Test
The test shows if you have an antigen against a protein from the virus. The problem with this test is that 50% of the positive results are false. Tests are promoted as good to be taken by everyone including kids. Because of the many false positive results rapid antigen test cannot be considered as reliable test.
At this point, it appears that the entire discussion about a usable test is a waste of time.
Dr. Angelova’s point is that even though multiple tests have proven to have no validity, there is still a demand for these tests.
Observe the date on this tweet, it is March of 2021. That is a number of months ago as I write this. Again, I never recall anyone reporting that all of these tests are inaccurate.
This is tweet is from Jan 2021 when I don’t recall anyone saying this.
What is the Reporting Protocol?
Despite the many appeals from virologists and other scientists to report only the people who are real cases or infections, and really can spread the virus, authorities still report all positive PCR tests as cases.
The question I have is as the test can’t distinguish, how do the people reading the test know which is which?
Mixing the real cases with the people who are healthy creates an unrealistic and scarier picture of the pandemic. In fact if we counted only the real cases or infections the pandemic would be called off.
The PCR test was disavowed by the WHO in January of 2021.
However, the article above was published in November of 2020. That is two months before the WHO disavowed the test. This person who wrote the quotes above has a Ph.D. in microbiology.
- How many other people in the world knew that this test was entirely unreliable?
- Why did the WHO approve of this test in January of 2020?
Observe this quote.
So, now that it’s a month later and the WHO themselves have come out and admit that there are a ton of false positives with PCR tests, something we have known for many many months now.. – Comment on John’s Hopkins Retractions
The following quotes are from an article in the New York Times that was published in August of 2021, which is four months before the PCR test was disavowed by the WHO.
Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus. The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.”
This is amazing, as the FDA would have had to have known that by allowing high numbers of cycles in the PCR test that enormous numbers of false positives were being generated.
The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.
So why weren’t much lower amplification cycles selected?
All of this means that the fact the tests were useless was known for many months before the WHO disavowed the PCR tests. However, after they were disavowed as ineffective, they continued to be used to “measure” covid cases and covid deaths.
A Test for General Usage or a Test for a Lab Environment?
The way the test was run brings up another problem.
Drosten and his coworkers used sequence from China to create the primers for the test. PCR test study was performed without a sample of a potential infected person. It has multiple flaws which were discussed before but one seems never got a spotlight – reproducibility.
Did the WHO test the PCR test before they approved of the PCR test? How did they determine the PCR test should have been used in the first place if they were never able to use it to identify covid?
It means that the laboratories which perform the test must use the exact same reagents and perform the test in the exact the same way. The PCR test study wasn’t made with a real sample so when implemented on real samples the result may be differ. The technique which is used is not only complicated, and requires well trained personnel but also is very sensitive.
Tests must be performed in sterile conditions as the sampling. In reality none of it is done: different reagents, real samples, since the mass of the testing unqualified personnel, no sterile environment during taking the sample and after it.
This means that the test was really entirely experimental and designed to be run from a lab environment rather than from the field. Also, why couldn’t a real sample of covid be found? I want to address this topic in a moment, but let us return to Angelova’s quote.
Let me summarize: all COVID-19 test samples are run only once in different conditions so COVID-19 testing doesn’t have reproducibility and repeatability. The result is unreliable. There is no evidence if those samples are positive or negative!
This is reinforced by the following quotation from Doctors 4 Covid Ethics.
The diagnostic procedure most widely used for this purpose is based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The PCR is a very powerful and versatile method that lends itself to numerous applications in molecular biology, and also in the laboratory diagnosis of viral infections. However, exactly because it is so powerful, PCR is very difficult to get right even at the best of times; it will yield accurate results only in the hands of highly trained and disciplined personnel. The enormous scale on which the method has been deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that it was entrusted to untrained and insufficiently supervised personnel; in such circumstances, the mass manufacture of false-positive results due to the cross-contamination of samples is a disaster waiting to happen (see for example ).
And this brings up several issues that are addressed in the following quote.
In a report by OffGuardian, an independent media, World Health Organization (WHO) admitted that the PCR test “cycle threshold” (CT value) standard is not accurate and results to false COVID positive cases.
Another thing that the WHO did not declare or admit is what the inventor Dr. Kary Mullis himself stated that the PCR is not really meant for diagnosing a viral disease or any disease as it is only for identifying nucleotides, very small fragments of DNA or RNA, for replication and enlargement so then experts can identify what they need to identify. The problem is that the genetic sequence of so-called SARS-CoV2 has never been truly identified; meaning that there was no valid virus causing COVID-19 isolation being done and passed the Koch’s postulate. So the question here is… what is the WHO trying to identify when there is no actual genetic sequence to be modelled in the first place?
Meanwhile, back in September of this year, the former Vice-President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon, along with others, has published a scientific paper. In the article entitled “Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger of False Positives”, Dr. Yeadon stated:
“We’re basing our government policy, our economic policy, and the policy of restricting fundamental rights, presumably on completely wrong data and assumptions about the coronavirus. If it weren’t for the test results that are constantly reported in the media, the pandemic would be over because nothing really happened.”
“The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89 to 94 per cent, or near certainty.”
In addition, in his video testimony, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a high profile German-American lawyer who already filed a class action suit together with another expert Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg also stated:
“Dr. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology Kamera from Germany, Kappel from the Netherlands, and Cahill from Ireland, as well as the microbiologist Dr. Arve from Austria, all of whom testified before the German Corona Committee, explicitly points out that a positive test does not mean that an intact virus has been found. The authors explain that what the PCR test actually measures is – and I quote:
“Simply the presence of partial RNA sequences present in the intact virus, which could be a piece of dead virus, which cannot make the subject sick, and cannot be transmitted, and cannot make anyone else sick.”
“Notionally, the system has produced its miracle cure. So, after everyone has been vaccinated, all the PCR tests being done will be done “under the new WHO guidelines”, and running only 25-30 cycles instead of 35+. Lo and behold, the number of “positive cases” will plummet, and we’ll have confirmation that our miracle vaccine works.” – EClassFile
Why are the PCR tests still being used, and why has the statement by the WHO that the PCR tests are invalid not been covered in the establishment media?
Another very curious item is the inability to produce an isolated covid virus as is covered in the article Why Is There Such a Problem Isolating The Covid Virus?
More on False Positives
Towards the end of the video, it describes that the PCR test provides false positives, which means nearly all the people who were declared to have died of covid did not die of covid, as they did not have covid. They had a false positive from a test that was never designed to be used to test if a person had covid.
All covid statistics on cases and death are meaningless.
Hmmmm…so the test is meaningless. Yet we breathlessly observe the test numbers as reported by media outlets and websites like world o meter.
This is a very popular website. I checked it many times. However, I had no idea that the number of cases is unknown as it relies on a test that does not work.
Furthermore, the number of covid deaths is also greatly exaggerated as I cover in the article How the Covid 19 Mortality Rate Was Irresponsibly Exaggerated.
There are a lot of very nice graphs on this website, like the one above. However, they just don’t mean anything.
Now review this quote.
And these criteria are imposed despite the fact that the RT-PCR test used to corroborate the “cause of death” provides misleading results.
In practice, as outlined above: “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” will be considered as the “underlying cause of death” without the conduct of a PCR test and without performing an autopsy.
According to a directive from Quebec’s Ministry of Health (April 2020):
“If the presumed cause of death is Covid-19 (with or without a positive test) an autopsy should be avoided and death should be attributed to Covid-19 as the probable cause of death. In addition, deaths whose probable cause is Covid-19 are considered natural, and are not subject to a coroner’s notice. “ (emphasis in the original document). The directive does not allow the counting of co-morbidities. Applied on April 16, 2020, this
directive was conducive to an immediate sharp increase in the number of deaths attributed to Covid-19: 44.9% of total deaths in Quebec were attributed to Covid-19 (week of 11-18 April 2020) (see table below). – Global Research
Yes, that is right.
A covid PCR test that generates 97% false positives when running at 35 to 40 amplification cycles (which is what most of the tests were set to — added to the fact there was no guidance in the Corman-Drosten paper combined with the FDA and other health authorities not specifying any parameters for the tests) was and is still used to categorize people as dying from covid.
All of the covid mortality statistics you have ever read are based on this erroneous method.
This video provides more on the problems with the PCR tests.
Why Did the FDA Never Approve the PCR Tests?
The PCR tests were approved by the WHO, before being disavowed, however, they were never actually approved by the FDA.
One can tell by reading the documentation, or the Covid Test Fact Sheet that is given to those that are tested.
Observe the following quote taken from this Fact Sheet.
If you have a positive test result, it is very likely that you have COVID-19. Therefore, it is also likely that you may be placed in isolation to avoid spreading the virus to others. There is a very small chance that this test can give a positive result that is wrong (a false positive result). Your healthcare provider will work with you to determine how best to care for you based on the test results along with medical history, and your symptoms.
This is not true, as has been covered already. Here is where the FDA addresses the status of the PCR test.
Is this test FDA-approved or cleared? No. This test is not yet approved or cleared by the United States FDA. When there are no FDA-approved or cleared tests available, and other criteria are met, FDA can make tests available under an emergency access mechanism called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The EUA for this test is supported by the Secretary of Health and Human Service’s (HHS’s) declaration that circumstances exist to justify the emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for the detection and/or diagnosis of the virus that causes COVID-19. This EUA will remain in effect (meaning this test can be used) for the duration of the COVID-19 declaration justifying emergency of IVDs, unless it is terminated or revoked by FDA (after which the test may no longer be used).
This is the same status given by the FDA to the vaccines — which is EUA, but not approved. So why has the FDA not yet approved the PCR tests? If the CDC disavowed the tests in January of 2020, why has the FDA not revoked the EUA for the PCR test?
Different PCR Tests for Vaccinated and Unvaccinated?
The PCR test standard was used for the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. However, this undermines all of the math in all of the tests discussed so far.
How do we know the use of PCR testing at 35-45 cycles was known by authorities to be fraudulent? Because now that the vaccine program has been rolled out the vaccinated are only given PCR tests at a reasonable 28 cycles, while the unvaccinated continue to be subjected to the fraudulent 35-45 cycle PCR testing. (18). This of course deceptively insures that the unvaccinated continue to generate completely asymptomatic false positives, and can then be made to appear to be driving the spread of the illness. Meanwhile the vaccinated are much less likely to test positive given their testing is now, indefensible by any scientific measure, conducted at the lower 28 cycle threshold when compared to the unvaccinated conducted at 35-45 cycles. – Global Research
Yes, so that could explain any difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Furthermore, the PCR tests were disavowed by the WHO in January of 2021 as an effective way for testing for covid. So both this test, and all other tests, including the tests submitted by Pfizer and Moderna and others to obtain emergency use authorization are now invalid. None of the math I went through makes any difference as the PCR tests were never legitimate. This should not be surprising as the PCR tests were funded by Bill Gates, as I cover in the article How Bill Gates Funded Science Fraud in the Imperial Collect Forecast Model.
How the PCR Test Created a Faux Whooping Cough Pandemic in 2008
Covid is not the first time the PCR tests created a number of false positives. The following occurred back in 2006.
For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.
Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.
Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.
Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.
That is the PCR test.
At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.
“That’s kind of what’s happening,” said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, an infectious disease specialist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University. “That’s the reality out there. We are trying to figure out how to use methods that have been the purview of bench scientists.”
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. – New York Times
So even though the PCR tests failed in the field (rather than a controlled and sterile lab environment) and created a faux mini pandemic, they were introduced and accepted to test covid, where they failed once again.
False Information About Covid Testing From the NYT
Curiously I found another article linked to the above article in the New York Times which carried ridiculous and false information about the PCR tests and proposed an even less accurate test be used.
During this pandemic, that has meant relying heavily on PCR testing, an extremely accurate but time- and labor-intensive method that requires samples to be processed at laboratories.
As we have established, the PCR test may be time and labor intensive, but it is not accurate, much less extremely accurate.
But as the virus continues its rampage across the country and tests remain in short supply in many regions, researchers and public health experts have grown increasingly vocal about revising this long-held credo. The best chance to rein in the sprawling outbreaks in the United States now, experts say, requires widespread adoption of less accurate tests, as long as they’re administered quickly and often enough.
This is amazing. It means that many people had no idea the PCR tests were incredibly inaccurate. Outside of rolling dice or tarrot cards, there is no test less accurate than a PCR test.
“Even if you miss somebody on Day 1,” said Omai Garner, director of clinical microbiology in the U.C.L.A. Health System. “If you test them repeatedly, the argument is, you’ll catch them the next time around.”
This quote is amazing in that this director had no idea about PCR inaccuracy at the time, and he directed a microbiology area at UCLA.
“If you had asked me this a couple months ago, I would have said we just need to be doing the PCR tests,” said Susan Butler-Wu, a clinical microbiologist at the University of Southern California. “But we are so far gone in this country. It is a catastrophe. It’s kitchen sink time, even if the tests are imperfect.”
Again this is another microbiologist who has no idea PCR tests are not effective tests. There is really no excuse for this ignorance by a person who works in the field.
Only a handful are quick and simple enough to be run in what is called a point-of-care setting, like a doctor’s office or urgent care clinic, without the need for lab equipment. And these tests are still relatively scarce nationwide. Government officials have pledged to astronomically scale up the number of point-of-care tests by fall, increasing by millions the weekly tally of tests conducted.
The entire covid pandemic was driven by the faulty PCR test, and that generated the majority of its results as false positives. Health care authorities were using a faulty PCR test to justify “ramping up” point of care tests (which I don’t think they ever did, as there has not been a test to replace the PCR). However, this is all based upon the belief in a test that never worked.
A better option, Dr. Mina said, might be antigen testing, which identifies pieces of protein. Two such tests, made by BD and Quidel, have received emergency authorization from the F.D.A.
According to Dr.
Antigen tests, on the other hand, can be low-tech and easy to manufacture en masse.
Not particularly relevant if they don’t work.
Cheap tests also aren’t the same thing as free tests. Even $1 tests can start to rack up quite a bill, especially for large families hoping to do daily checkups or nursing home aides required to get tested repeatedly. Left unregulated, the testing market could end up exacerbating the socioeconomic split that’s already disproportionately burdened some sectors of the population with the worst effects of Covid-19.
Daily testing? For a virus that has an infinitesimal risk to all by the morbidly obese and +80 set? This shows the insanity of pandemic thinking. Furthermore, all of these topics might be of interest, but none of this ever happened.
Concerns over accuracy bogged down the approval process for simple, speedy tests. F.D.A. guidelines stipulate that any new coronavirus test vying for emergency clearance from the agency must perform nearly as well as the gold standard of PCR.
That should not be difficult. At the amplification cycles, the PCR was normally run at, the false positive rate was 97%.
“Our backs are against the wall, and it’s Hail Mary time,” Dr. Butler-Wu said. “We have to try something different.”
No one’s backs were against a wall. The pandemic was driven by a faulty PCR test.
What further amazes one is the credentials of who wrote this article.
Katherine J. Wu is a reporter covering science and health. She holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and immunobiology from Harvard University.
Well, none of that did any good. This article is filled with false assumptions and nowhere does this reporter use her domain expertise to check on these assumptions.
The CDC Produces Contaminated PCR Tests
In addition to all of these problems, the CDC has the following problems in rolling out the tests.
The faulty coronavirus testing kits developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the early weeks of the pandemic were not only contaminated but had a basic design flaw, according to an internal review by the agency.
Health officials had already acknowledged that the test kits were contaminated, but the internal report, whose findings were published in PLOS ONE on Wednesday, also documented a design error that caused false positives.
The distribution of faulty test kits, at a time when no other tests were authorized, set back health officials’ efforts to detect and track the virus.
“It delayed the availability of more widespread testing,” said Dr. Benjamin Pinsky, the director of clinical virology for Stanford Health Care. He added, “I think it’s important that they got to the bottom of what went wrong.” – NYT
It Is Not Only PCR Test That is Inaccurate – It is Also the Antibody Test That is Suspect
The following quote describes
Even a robot programmed to “follow the science” would throw up his hands in despair while reading the latest FDA COVID pronouncement.
After untold numbers of people have been given antibody tests to determine their COVID status, the FDA now states:
“Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety communication informing the public that results from SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.”
I’m imagining just a small sample of people—perhaps 5000—marching in unison into a hospital, saying, “We tested positive for COVID on an antibody test…and then we had to isolate, and some of us were treated with toxic drugs…and NOW we learn that the antibody test is useless…”
The FDA document, dated May 19, 2021, is titled: “FDA In Brief: FDA Advises Against Use of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test Results to Evaluate Immunity or Protection From COVID-19, Including After Vaccination”.  [1a] – No More Fake News
What is curious is that while this document was published in May, many months later, we are still using antibody tests.
Why are we still doing this?
The quote continues…
Digging a little deeper in the document, we have a statement referring to the COVID vaccine:
“The authorized vaccines for prevention of COVID-19 induce antibodies to specific viral protein targets; post-vaccination antibody test results will be negative in individuals without a history of previous natural infection if the test used does not detect the type of antibodies induced by the vaccine.”
In other words, the FDA is saying, “Look, the vaccine creates specific antibodies against the spike protein, not the virus. If you take the standard antibody test after vaccination, it’ll be useless, because the test isn’t meant to detect antibodies against the spike protein. It only detects antibodies against the virus .” – No More Fake News
Amazing! Simply amazing. But not surprising. As I (and many other have covered) in the article How Effective is the Covid Vaccines?, the vaccines don’t work.
The quote continues…
This raises several serious questions. One of them is: Since developing antibody tests is as easy as pie, why hasn’t the FDA developed one that detects antibodies against the spike protein?
And the answer to that question is obvious. If the FDA did develop such a test, then—in terms of conventional vaccine theory—it would be easy to see how well the vaccine is working, or not working.
And THAT is not a goal public health officials want to achieve. That is not a risk worth taking. Suppose, after testing 20,000 vaccinated people, it turns out that only 800 have produced antibodies against the spike protein?
This latest foray shows the FDA is both criminal and insane. – No More Fake News
I cover in the article How the CDC, FDA and USA Today Misrepresented The Effectiveness of Covid PCR Tests, how USA Today served as a PR outlet for the CDC and provided obviously false information about the PCR Test.
There is no evidence that the PCR test ever worked. (and also no evidence that the covid vaccines create antibodies against covid).
- This means that the statistics on covid need to be thrown out and the pandemic needs to be evaluated for who knew what and when did they know it.
- Even after the WHO disavowed the PCR test in January (which many other people with the right background knew before this), the PCR tests continue to be used. Data, graphics, and statistical analysis is a wonderful thing. However, its usability entirely relies on data integrity. Without that, it is useless to perform statistical analysis.