Understanding The PCR Test and How There Was Never a Reliable Test for Covid

Last Updated on January 5, 2023 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • For nearly 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.

The Reality of the PCR Tests

The PCR test is explained by Dr Lidiya Angelova in the following quotation. 

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 unlike many other tests where you take blood or other fluids, and 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.

Interested in More?

Would you like to get access to 100% independent medical information?

To Subscribe to the Site

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 developing 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.” [1]

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.” [45]

Reliable and accurate PCR-test protocols are normally designed using between 100 nM and 200 nM per primer [7]. 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 [1].