Ineffective and unreliable testing

1. The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR test).

The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test is being used inappropriately to drive the inflation of Covid-19 ‘cases’ on which the pandemic and associated fear-based messaging is based.

E Surkova et al. False positive Covid-19 results: Hidden problems and costs. September 29, 2020: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30453-7

Dr M Yeadon. Lies, damned lies and health statistics: the deadly danger of false positives. 3 February 2021: https://www.Covid19assembly.org/2021/02/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/

Dr Craig Craig FRC Path. How Covid deaths are over counted. 27 October 2020: https://dailysceptic.org/how-Covid-deaths-are-over-counted/

PCR Positives: What do they mean? The Oxford Centre for Evidence for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Oxford. 23 September 2020: https://www.cebm.net/Covid-19/pcr-positives-what-do-they-mean
and https://bpa-pathology.com/Covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

This test is hypersensitive and highly suspectable to contamination, particularly when not processed with the utmost rigour by properly trained staff. Positive tests do not equate to symptomatic sick people yet the impression given by the word ‘case’ is that it is equivalent to a serious infection. It is not to be used for infectious diseases!

Dr Kary Mullis was awarded a Nobel Prize for the development of the PCR test over 25 years ago stated that his technology could,

“Find almost anything in anybody and that it doesn’t tell you that you are sick.”

The intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses. A PCR test may be positive:

  • Before clinical features arise
  • Long after clinical features have abated
  • Or even when a person has simply come into contact with the disease but without them ever becoming infected

It is also widely acknowledged by scientists that false positives are probable and even likely when PCR tests are amplified at high cycle thresholds. Evidence from external quality assessments and real-world data indicate a high enough false positive rate to make positive results highly unreliable under a broad range of scenarios.

2. Cycle Thresholds (CT) above 35 are potentially false.

In December 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared that any positive results run at CT above 35 were potentially 100% false.

Numerous Freedom of Information (FIO) have identified CT numbers of 40+ being used in laboratories in the UK, such figures being authorised by the Government:

The WHO used a paper published by Corman Drosten et al as the basis for their protocol for detection and diagnostics and this was used worldwide to detect SARS-CoV-2 in tested samples. Many scientists consider the Corman Drosten paper to be so poor they have requested its immediate withdrawal from publication. Among the deluge of criticisms, including an apparent lack of peer review, no use of negative controls and the notable absence of any standard operational procedure, the scientists observed:
‘The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 … is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China because at the time neither control material of infectious (‘live’) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date, no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full-length RNA thereof.’

The PCR tests used to identify persons infected by SARS-COV-2, therefore, do not have a valid gold standard for comparison. This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness by comparison with a ‘gold standard,’ meaning the most accurate method available.