The idea that healthy people going about their normal daily activities are spreading disease, touted as "asymptomatic spread", has been kicked into overdrive and repeated ad nauseam since early 2020. As we showed here, this idea turns out not to be true at all.
Here we will show how PCR (polymerase chain reaction), as currently used, is in fact a completely fraudulent scheme that misleads the public as to the prevalance of infection, number of cases, and number of deaths attributed to covid.
What does it do?
In the most simplified layman's terms, PCR takes a tiny fragment of something and makes copies of it until there's enough of it to be seen. In the context of covid, they're taking a throat or nose sample and looking for said tiny fragment within it that is supposed to correspond to the allegedly novel coronavirus being called SARS-CoV-2.
There are some fatal flaws with using PCR to determine if someone is infected with SARS-CoV-2.
- SARS-CoV-2 has never been formally isolated & purified
- PCR tests were developed based on a single paper by Corman, Drosten et al that was not peer reviewed, they have not been calibrated with any isolated virus sample, but instead based on genetic similarity to the 2003 SARS virus
- PCR manufacturers have said it's not intended for diagnostic use, should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis, and can not distinguish between the different viruses
Then there is the issue of the cycle threshold. With PCR, every cycle represents an exponential increase in amplification. Read below on why this is important.
Dr. Fauci explained that PCR =>35 cycles can't find culturable virus. For the very same reason, the WHO also said a positive test does not equal a sick or contagious person. In fact, even Kary Mullis, the scientist who won a nobel prize for inventing PCR, says that PCR cannot determine if you're sick.
A top Manitoba microbiologist, associate medical director of Cadham Lab Dr. Jared Bullard recently testified in a hearing challenging the accuracy of PCR. He said even at a low cycle threshold of 18, over half were false positives and zero true positives at 25 cycles:
44% of the “positive” samples using a Ct of 18 returned a viable lab culture. Samples tested at a Ct of over 25, according to Dr. Bullard’s report, produced no viable lab cultures
Prominent virologist Vincent Racaniello, a Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Columbia University said on PCR:
it detects nucleic acids, not infectious virus.
Although public health officials are very well aware of all the above, PCR tests are still being carried out at 35-45 cycles, with positive PCR tests being counted as "cases", which people assume are sick or contagious people. They demonstrably are not.
If all of that wasn't already bad enough, the CDC recently issued new guidance saying that they would stop testing vaccinated people except for specific rare circumstances, and in such circumstances, vaccinated people will be tested with PCR at only 28 cycles.
Hopefully, the picture is starting to become more clear.
For more in depth reading on PCR as it relates to SARS-CoV-2, here are a few papers to get you started:
- Infection Disease Society of America: "less than 3% positive cultures at 35 cycles"
- European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases: "no culture above 34 cycles"
- The Lancet: "RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness"
- Eurosurveillance: "absence of available virus isolates, validation enabled by close genetic relatedness to 2003 SARS-CoV"
- medRxiv: "PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable"
- medRxiv: "PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with possible segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious"
- medRxiv: "Among 162,457 individuals, 4164 (2.6%) had a positive RT-PCR test result, defined as Ct<40. Depending on the national test strategy, higher positive rates were associated with testing predominantly symptomatic people. Children (0-9 years) and older adults (70+ years). Only 40.6% of test positives showed low Ct values < 25 (potentially infectious"
- Infectious Disease Society of America: "Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has become the primary method to diagnose viral diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus; thus, its ability to determine duration of infectivity of patients is limited"
- World Health Organization: "design principle of PCR means patients with high viral load, relatively few cycles will needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low"
- Journal of Medical Virology: "PCR test results were variable and potentially unstable, and should not be considered as the only indicator for diagnosis, treatment, isolation"
- Journal of Infection: "In light of our findings that more than half of individuals with positive PCR test results are unlikely to have been infectious, RT-PCR test positivity should not be taken as an accurate measure of infectious SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Our results confirm the findings of others that the routine use of “positive” RT-PCR test results as the gold standard for assessing and controlling infectiousness fails to reflect the fact “that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious”"
- Bulgarian Pathology Association: "PCR tests scientifically meaningless"
- Brownstone Institute: "PCR Tests and the Rise of Disease Panic"
Video playlist: doctors and scientists on PCR
To view a playlist of doctors and scientists speaking on PCR, a great place to start would be the PCR playlist from the uncensorable video archive. Please contact us if you have additional clips you'd like to see added to the playlist.
We hope you've found this helpful. Please share this post if you did!