COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose.Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter
Translate this page into your preferred language Google.translate.com
Appetizer: It is 2007 and Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t
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.
Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.
Many of the new molecular tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called “home brews,” are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates.
But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.
“We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,” Dr. Kretsinger added.
PCR explained in 2 minutes (video)
SARS-CoV-2 viral load and shedding kinetics
December 2, 2022 – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00822-w
Our ability to define the presence of infectious virus is key to guiding public health measures, as it will enable the isolation of infectious individuals to limit secondary transmission. Unfortunately, no point-of-care diagnostic test currently exists to determine infectious SARS-CoV-2 in a patient sample, and virus culture as described above is not suited for diagnostic purposes. Thus, a range of approaches have been suggested to find a proxy for infectiousness to guide isolation periods.
Although much progress has been made during the pandemic in the field of diagnostics, to date, no diagnostic tests exist that reliably determine the presence of infectious virus. Continuing evaluation of viral-shedding characteristics under these changing circumstances and understanding the biological properties of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants when it comes to viral shedding remain of importance to guide public health practices.
Clarifying the evidence on SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid tests in public health responses to COVID-19
However, for public health measures, another approach is needed. Testing to help slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 asks not whether someone has RNA in their nose from earlier infection, but whether they are infectious today. It is a net loss to the health, social, and economic wellbeing of communities if post-infectious individuals test positive and isolate for 10 days. In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test.
This suggests that 50–75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.
Once SARS-CoV-2 replication has been controlled by the immune system, RNA levels detectable by PCR
on respiratory secretions fall to very low levels when individuals are much less likely to infect others.
The remaining RNA copies can take weeks, or occasionally months to clear, during which time PCR remains
PCR alone unsuitable as a basis for pandemic measures
June 18, 2021 Around 190,000 PCR tests evaluated
Original article in German (Download PDF), translation with Google Translate.
In the renowned Journal of Infection, researchers from the Medical Faculty of the UDE point out that the results of RT-PCR tests alone are insufficiently meaningful to justify measures to combat pandemics. According to their investigation, positive test results do not sufficiently prove that those infected with SARS-CoV-2 can infect other people with the coronavirus. Together with scientists from the University of Münster and the MVZ Labor Münster, they had previously evaluated around 190,000 results from more than 160,000 people.
This incidence value in turn forms an important basis for the federal and state governments to justify anti-corona measures, for example contact restrictions or curfews. However, the research teams from Essen and Münster question this based on their data analysis.
According to our study, a positive RT-PCR test alone is not sufficient proof that those tested can also transmit the coronavirus to other people
The number of SARS-CoV-2 positive testers calculated at the end should therefore not be used as a basis for pandemic control measures such as quarantine, isolation or lockdown.Prof. Dr. Andreas Stang, Director of the Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IMIBE) at the Essen University Hospital
The performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population screening
We analysed real-world data from a large laboratory in the city of Münster (population 313,000), Germany, derived from a single fully automated high throughput RT-PCR platform (cobas SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR system, Roche Diagnostics) utilizing the same two gene targets for the entire study period (weeks 10-49, 2020).
This laboratory performed about 80% of all SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests in the Münster region during this time. We explored changes in the percentage of positive RT-PCR tests (positive rate) over time. In addition, we assessed the influence of covariates such as age, sex, calendar time, and symptoms at the time of first RT-PCR test on the distribution of cycle threshold (Ct) values.
Nearly all swab specimens were tested within 24 hours of collection. The tests and their interpretation were carried out in accordance with the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 emergency use authorization (EUA) protocol, the specific targets of the test being the open reading frame (ORF) 1ab and the pan-Sarbecovirus E genes.
The limit of detection, defined as the concentration of analyte that will be detected in 95% of replicate tests was 0.007 median tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50) per ml for target 1 and 0.004 TCID50/ml for target 2, corresponding to Ct values of approximately 33 and 36, respectively (cobas® SARS-CoV-2 package insert, version 1.0).
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” .
Asymptomatic individuals with positive RT-PCR test results have higher Ct values and a lower probability of being infectious than symptomatic individuals with positive results. Although Ct values have been shown to be inversely associated with viral load and infectivity, there is no international standardization across laboratories, rendering problematic the interpretation of RT-PCR tests when used as a tool for mass screening.
Mass screening A misguided policy, unlikely to reduce transmission
Mass screening for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, a misguided policy, unlikely to reduce transmission
In 60 years of screening healthy people, effectiveness has never yet been achieved just by offering tests.
Forty million cervical cytology screening tests from 1964 to 1985 achieved no net benefit.
The December surge of infections in Liverpool, where trained testers screened a quarter of the population, was no lower than in other cities without screening.
The World Health Organization has never advised testing low risk people.
The EU Council advice on rapid tests focuses on those with high pretest probability, such as contacts of cases or where test positivity rates are >10%.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is explicit on limitations of rapid tests in low prevalence settings and is careful to distinguish diagnostic uses from screening.
CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT
CURATED BY AN INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTISTS IN LIFE SCIENCES (ICSLS)
This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter, signed by all the main & co-authors. First and last listed names are the first and second main authors. All names in between are co-authors. External […]
This is the retraction-request letter sent to Eurosurveillance by the main & co-author’s, written by Dr. Peter Borger, enclosed to the extended Review Report submission via the Eurosurveillance online-submission portal. Submission date was 27th November 2020. Nov 26th 2020, To: Editorial Board EurosurveillanceEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)Gustav III:s Boulevard 4016973 SolnaSweden Subject: […]
COVID TEST FAIL: External Peer Review Exposes 10 Key Scientific Flaws
Corman-Drosten review / retraction paper discussed at the HighWire
What did Drosten say in 2014 about the PCR test and media!!
The method is so sensitive that it can detect a single genetic molecule of the virus … now suddenly mild cases and people who are actually very healthy are included in the reporting statisticsChristian Heinrich Maria Drosten
In addition, the local media boiled the matter incredibly high … Medicine is not free from fashion wavesChristian Heinrich Maria Drosten
Coronavirus Scandal Breaking in Merkel’s Germany.
FATAL scientific incompetence, flaws greeted with endorsement by WHO corrupt Director General Tedros Adhanom.
Coronavirus Scandal Breaking in Merkel’s Germany. False Positives, Drosten PCR involving the professor at the heart of Merkel’s corona advisory group
A survey of routine laboratory RT-PCR test results from the region of Münster, Germany
May 11, 2021 – Objectives To evaluate the population-based performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic in 2020.
Results 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). The percentage of Ct values below 25 was lower among children (0-9), adolescents (10-19), and among the elderly (70+ years).
Conclusions RT-PCR testing as a tool for mass screening should not be used alone as a base for pandemic decision making including measures such as quarantine, isolation, and lockdown.
Discussion RT-PCR test positivity should not be taken as an accurate measure of infectious SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Real world RT-PCR positive test results most likely comprise a mixture of prevalent cases (contact with SARS-CoV-2 at least 9 days ago, most likely not infectious), new cases (contact with virus less than 9 days, more likely to be infectious) and false positives. In addition, the clinical relevance of a positive RT-PCR test during the different time periods from March to December 2020 is also unclear. From an epidemiological point of view it is similarly problematic to relate COVID-19 deaths to a cumulative incidence based on RT-PCR test positives, rather than from estimates based on data obtained from sero-prevalence studies.
Our results corroborate findings that assessment and control of infectiousness by routine reporting of the number of “positive” RT-PCR tests, as a gold standard, ignores
“that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious”.
Asymptomatic RT-PCR test positive individuals have higher Ct values and a lower probability of being infective than test positives with symptoms.
Although Ct values have been shown to be inversely associated with viral load and infectivity, there is no international standardization across laboratories, making the interpretation of RT-PCR tests as a tool for mass screening confusing/difficult.
The PCR Disaster – Genesis and Evolution of the »Drosten Test«
This booklet exposes a cornerstone of the Corona narrative—testing based on Polymerase Chain Reaction, PCR for short. It has emerged from a series of longer articles from the blog www.corodok.de that have appeared over the past few months.
The author of the following pages, Illa, wants to remain anonymous. But the sources she uncovers and her analytical mind emerge all the more clearly for it. Illa reveals patterns that also reach before the Corona year 2020. She also reveals a subtle web of actors and institutions that profit from society’s fear of an invisible enemy.
Attached is the authorised transcript of Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer’s hearing before the Corona Committee on 5 February 2021, in which she discusses the unusual genesis of the article in the journal Eu- rosurveillance that was written by the Drosten Group. The end of this story is still open; however, it is already becoming apparent that »science« is not immune to the grip of economic interests, even if it pretends to be.
The volume concludes with a glossary to help all those who can no longer see the wood for the trees.
2021 threatens to become another Corona year. The publisher and editor agree that it does no good to remain in shock like a rabbit in front of a snake. The booklet is therefore the beginning of a series that examines the structural framework of the Corona crisis from different angles.
Dr Dolores Cahill
Januari 2021 – I’m launching a project to sequence PCR test because this whole lockdown is based on positive PCR tests. But actually in the diagnostic world you would never diagnose with just a positive or negative. You have to actually sequence what is the test measuring and in October 2020 there were 1500 PCR tests sequenced and all of them were influenza A and B.
The legislation of the lockdown and the so called pandemic and public health emergency is based on the causative agent of COVID-19 being a coronavirus. What we are and what I am personally doing is going to sequence PCR from informed consent, from people in Ireland and the UK. If those sequences are not SARS-COV2 which I think would be a biological impossibility.
I am intending to take an injunction in Ireland to the High Court if the sequences come back as influenza. The government cannot be reporting cases as COVID-19 or coronavirus. Medical doctors cannot be putting causes of death because they are required to treat people based on whatever the causative agent is and they can be struck off but they also can be sued under medical negligence by people.
The other thing that we are going to initiate is for people who are quarantined, like if you can’t return to Canada or if in Canada they are using these tests, and they are false then people can sue the ministers and prime ministers and the diagnostic companies and anyone administering the test. The reason is that the ministers and prime ministers are spending citizens or peoples money and that is under procurement. There are commercial you know contracts and if they should be testing whether these tests are testing for SARS-COV2 or something else; if they’re spending money and the tests are not detecting the causative agent SARS-COV2 then they are engaging in fraud and that is malpractice in public office! Which is a crime in Canada Ireland UK America with 5 to 10 years.
The Prime Minister personally can be sued any indemnity they may have had does not apply if they have not done their duty of care to check that the testing was correct. So the way to actually bring down the lockdown is to actually sue personally the person that is requiring you to do the test, the manufacturer of the test, the hospital and the doctor and the advisory committees individually, and the ministers and prime ministers!
The legislation is based on SARS-COV2! We have heard from whistleblowers in America that they detected SARS-COV2 in the buffer of the PCR test, so that would of-course be potentially commercial fraud, diagnostic fraud; sue them individually or their insurance!
The PCR deception
More or less the full story of deception by PCR in 15 minutes!
Kary Mullis on PCR
If they can find this virus in you at all and with PCR if you do it well you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else. I mean you can amplify one single molecule up to to supplements you can really measure which PCR can do then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of ’em in your body
It’s just a process that is used to make a whole lot of something out of something it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that
Kary Banks Mullis (December 28, 1944 – August 7, 2019) was an American biochemist. In recognition of his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, he shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Michael Smith and was awarded the Japan Prize in the same year. His invention became a central technique in biochemistry and molecular biology.
Kary Mullis invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which is being used to prove that there is an outbreak of Covid-19. Mullis won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his invention. In this video, he describes his quest for documentation of the scientific proof of the HIV-AIDS connection. Mullis is not a Ph.D. and he is not paid by the government, therefore he can be honest. Be prepared to have some of your preconceptions blown up.
Fragment video above on PCR test
Kary Mullis talks about the basis of modern science: the experiment. Sharing tales from the 17th century and from his own backyard-rocketry days, Mullis celebrates the curiosity, inspiration and rigor of good science in all its forms.
Neither was PCR developed for diagnosis, nor has it ever been approved.
German microbiologist -Sucharit Bhakdi
Statistical Pandemic Fraud led by Germany’s Robert Koch Institute
During the 45th Sitting of the German Corona Committee on March 26th 2021, Dr. Rüdiger Pötsche explains his observation of a statistical fraud perpetrated on the citizens of Germany by Lothar Wieler, leader of the foremost institute for infectious diseases, The Robert Koch Institute (RKI). This institute has advised the government on lockdown measures. German language, English subtitles
SARS-CoV-2 shedding and ineffectivity
Fei Zhou and colleagues estimated mean duration of viral shedding by assessing the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral RNA in patient samples. Assessing potential infectivity is a labour-intensive process, but the presence of nucleic acid alone cannot be used to define viral shedding or infection potential, as the authors state is possible within their methods.
For many viral diseases (SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, influenza virus, Ebola virus, and Zika virus) it is well known that viral RNA can be detected long after the disappearance of infectious virus.
With measles virus, viral RNA can still be detected 6–8 weeks after the clearance of infectious virus.
The immune system can neutralise viruses by lysing their envelope or aggregating virus particles; these processes prevent subsequent infection but do not eliminate nucleic acid, which degrades slowly over time.
Although the use of sensitive PCR methods offers value from a diagnostic viewpoint, caution is required when applying such data to assess the duration of viral shedding and infection potential because PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid.
Sweden: PCR Criteria guidance on for assessment of covid-19 infection
Google translate: It is difficult to evaluate test results in individuals later in the course as RNA can be detected for several weeks but can not distinguish between infectious and non-infectious (inactivated by the immune system) virus.
PCR tests can therefore not be used to determine freedom from infection and you must instead mainly use clinical criteria and time from the time of illness.
Duration of Culturable SARS-CoV-2 in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19
The median time from symptom onset to viral clearance in culture was 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 5 to 10), and the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance on real-time RT-PCR was 34 days (lower boundary of the 95% CI, 24 days).
Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues
An unresolved issue of SARS-CoV-2 disease is that patients often remain positive for viral RNA as detected by PCR many weeks after the initial infection in the absence of evidence for viral replication.
More on https://thevirus.wtf/vaccine/#RT-SARS-CoV-2-RNA
WHO Finally Admits COVID-19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’
Jan 21, 2021 The WHO’s new guidance, which includes lower PCR thresholds, almost guarantees COVID “case” numbers will automatically drop dramatically around the world.
What that means in plain language is that the more cycles a test goes through, the more false positives that are reported.
Now, with the WHO’s lower PCR thresholds, it’s practically guaranteed that COVID “case” numbers will automatically drop dramatically around the world.
The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed
The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis – By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
While the WHO does not deny the validity of their misleading January 2020 guidelines, they nonetheless recommend “Re-testing” (which everybody knows is an impossibility).
The contentious issue pertains to the number of amplification threshold cycles (Ct). According to Pieter Borger, et al
The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)
The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.
WHO Information Notice for IVD Users
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
20 January 2021 Medical product alert Geneva Reading time: 1 min (370 words)
Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
Date: 13 January 2021
WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2
Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.
Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.
Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
Actions to be taken by IVD users:
1-Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
2-Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
3-Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
4-Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.
False positives, 50%? more likely 90%!
All credit goes to Wouter J. Keller (twitter @wouterkeller).
The text below is translated (quick and dirty) from his tweet (Tweet-Link) … Dutch language
1 / I always say that the PCR test gives about 50% false pos (because of “dead” virus)
Recent research in Nature shows that I am too optimistic.
Judging by the black dots (successful culture), perhaps 90% of the pos PCR tests is false-pos!
2 / If the PCR test shows 90% false-pos (fig), then I have 2 questions:
– Why do we still test asymptomatic (without complaints) with PCR, like those with a bone fracture?
– Would the antigen rapid test not be a better alternative, given so-called “false” negs compared to the PCR test?
3 / And we now continue in NL until CT = 45 (2 ^ 45 multiplication) before a PCR test is definitively negative. According to the authors a CT threshold of about 24 (!) Would correspond to 6.63 (on the vertical axis) and only 5% false-pos. Our CT = 45 threshold is therefore almost 2x too high!
4 / Nice detail: the (peer-reviewed) research in Nature was done at our own Erasmus University (NL). With the most famous co-author .. Prof. Marion Koopmans!
(personal comment “a butcher checking his own meat“)
Study source https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20568-4
Fig. 1: Viral loads and duration of symptoms for infectious virus shedding.
From: Duration and key determinants of infectious virus shedding in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)
Viral RNA loads (Log10 RNA copies/mL) in the respiratory samples versus the duration of symptoms (days). Black boxes represent virus culture positive samples and open red circles represent the virus culture negative samples.
Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests Unreliable
How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society
It is time for everyone to come out of this negative trance, this collective hysteria, because famine, poverty, massive unemployment will kill, mow down many more people than SARS-CoV-2!
By Dr. Pascal Sacré Global Research, November 05, 2020
Introduction: using a technique to lock down society. All current propaganda on the COVID-19 pandemic is based on an assumption that is considered obvious, true and no longer questioned:
Positive RT-PCR test means being sick with COVID. This assumption is misleading.
Very few people, including doctors, understand how a PCR test works.
RT-PCR, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose.
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose.
- UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRA
- LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD
- NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGIN
- IRRATIONAL TEST RESULTS
- WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE TESTS CAN MEASURE THE “VIRAL LOAD”?
- HIGH CQ VALUES MAKE THE TEST RESULTS EVEN MORE MEANINGLESS
Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
We have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification”
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.
Reader view backup download:
The Truth about PCR Test Kit from the Inventor and Other Experts
“it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.”
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”
“No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable. Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us. They’re not just looking for the virus. Please put that in your article.”
Professor Allyson Pollock – tests have not been properly evaluated
The government has a test… , but these tests …, the public has been given misinformation.
It is not a test, which tells you whether you have infection or whether you’re infectious. It simply tells you whether you have bits of the RNA.
In a place like Liverpool, where the rates of infection are falling dramatically, it’s very likely that quite a lot of population will have evidence of an old infection. And that, especially in children could result in them being isolated unnecessarily and harmfully.
The second thing about this test is that these tests have not been properly evaluated in community settings. This is a real worry, we do not know whether they work and what they tell us in community settings.
… we have not established whether the screening intervention works and what the harms and the benefits are …
the W.H.O have said focus on identifying people with symptoms and they do not recommend mass asymptomatic testing.
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
Read the full article By Apoorva Mandavilli Aug. 29, 2020
Up to 90% Who’ve Tested COVID-Positive Wrongly Diagnosed
False positives in reverse transcription PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2
PCR amplification of nucleic acids contributes to test sensitivity but also creates vulnerabilities to minute levels of sample contamination, which can produce false positives that are indistinguishable from true positives.
Broadening the scale of testing does generate more data, the quality of the generated data declines as it becomes increasing contaminated by false positives.
The Patient’s Fact Sheet for the US CDC’s SARS-CoV-2 test states that there is only “a very small chance” that positive tests result could be wrong, but suggests that negative results could well be wrong. Public health officials have similarly suggested that positive test results are absolutely reliable but negative results are untrustworthy.
It is 14-34 times more likely that a positive than a negative result is wrong. Positive results are more likely to be wrong than negative results at prevalences from 0- 15%; with higher FPRs or lower FNRs, this remains true at higher prevalences.
Mass PCR testing of the healthy and asymptomatic is counter-productive
Current PCR tests provide evidence of the presence of viral RNA but no information about whether the individual is infectious
“Detection of viruses using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus is another matter. RT-PCR uses enzymes called reverse transcriptase to change a specific piece of genetic material called RNA into a matching piece of genetic DNA. The test then amplifies this DNA exponentially; millions of copies of DNA can be made from a single viral RNA strand.
“A fluorescent signal is attached to the DNA copies, and when the fluorescent signal reaches a certain threshold, the test is deemed positive. The number of cycles required before the fluorescence threshold is reached gives an estimate of how much virus is present in the sample. This measure is called the cycle threshold (Ct). The higher the cycle number, the less RNA there is in the sample; the lower the level, the greater the amount in the initial sample.”
RNA degrades slowly and can be detected weeks after the patient is no longer infectious. “In one case, RT-PCR continued to pick up fragments of RNA until the 63rd day after symptom onset. The duration of faecal shedding of viral RNA in one patient was up to 47 days from symptom onset.”
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs
Epidemiological and diagnostic performance:
- Overestimating COVID-19 incidence and the extent of asymptomatic infection
- Misleading diagnostic performance, potentially leading to mistaken purchasing orinvestment decisions if a new test shows high performance by identification of negative reference samples as positive (ie, is it a false positive or does the test show higher sensitivity than the other comparator tests used to establish the negativity of the test sample?)
Are you infectious if you have a positive PCR test result for COVID-19?
August 5, 2020 -Tom Jefferson, Carl Heneghan, Elizabeth Spencer, Jon Brassey
PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear.
During our Open Evidence Review of oral-fecal transmission of Covid-19, we noticed how few studies had attempted or reported culturing live SARS-CoV-2 virus from human samples.
This surprised us, as viral culture is regarded as a gold standard or reference test against which any diagnostic index test for viruses must be measured and calibrated, to understand the predictive properties of that test. In viral culture, viruses are injected in the laboratory cell lines to see if they cause cell damage and death, thus releasing a whole set of new viruses that can go on to infect other cells.
We, therefore, reviewed the evidence from studies reporting data on viral culture or isolation as well as reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), to understand more about how the PCR results reflect infectivity. Full story online
PCR – how the positive predictive value is influenced by disease prevalence
what is the positive and negative predictive value, why they are useful and how the positive predictive value is influenced by disease prevalence.
Dr Andrew Kaufman April 17, 2020 (Why PCR test is useless)
Dr. Andrew Kaufman Unmasking the Covid19 lies
Online interview at Londoreal.tv
Dr. Andrew Kaufman Unmaksking the Covid19 lies
Facts VS Fiction of the Coronavirus pandemic. Statistics of total number of deaths are distorted by mis-recording the cause of death on death certificates. Pandemic is a completely manufactured crisis, our rights taken away leading towards social control.
David Crowe Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory
Canadian researcher, with degrees in biology & mathematics
The world is suffering from a massive delusion based on the belief that a test for
RNA2 is a test for a deadly new virus. Without purification and characterisation of virus particles, it cannot be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present.
This strange new disease, officially named COVID-19, has none of its own symptoms.
Fever and cough, previously blamed on uncountable viruses and bacteria, as well as environmental contaminants, are most common, as well as abnormal lung images, despite those being found in healthy people.
Yet, despite the fact that only a minority of people will test positive (often less than 5%), it is assumed that this disease is easily recognized. If that were truly the case, the majority of people selected for testing by doctors should be positive.
Link to more information on the The Infectious Myth A Book Project by David Crowe
Dr. med Claus Köhnlein PCA-based test, where false positives are programmed in.
A German Internist and co-author of the book Virus Mania. Corona test a PCA-based test, where false positives are programmed in.
Half of the positive tests could be wrong. PCA tests often show false positives. You can consult professor Gigerenzer in Berlin about this. The tests are very sensitive. If you have only one molecule of something, the test may show positive. That doesn’t mean the patient is sick, or infected with COVID19; it doesn’t get isolated, but the world relies on these tests.
Coronavirus: The Truth about PCR Test Kit
“PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome. The problem is the test is known not to work. It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery. Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.” Full Article
The Problem to determine SARS-CoV-2 infections using PCR Tests
Prof. Dr. rer. hum. biol. Ulrike Kämmerer: “PCR Diagnostic test isn’t a immunological test it can only evidence the presence of nucleic acids.” “but this has nothing to do with living cells, active viruses or any disease.”
This video is an edited abstract of the live stream coverage, focussing only on the part of the evidence concerning the controversial use of PCR tests. Full video still available on YouTube (see below)
In Germany, a group of lawyers have formed the independent Corona Committee for the purpose of gathering factual evidence about the pandemic in order to legally challenge the authorities as to the suitability of the continuing measures. Details in english about the Corona Committee can be found here: en.corona-ausschuss.de
The 4th evidence gathering session took place on 24.07.2020 and was streamed on Oval Media’s YouTube channel. Link here: youtu.be/pKllldIiMpI
Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?
By Celia Farber – April 7, 2020
The Corona Simulation Machine: Why the Inventor of The “Corona Test” Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus
“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction.
What do we mean when we say somebody has ‘tested positive’ for the Corona Virus? The answer would astound you. But getting this “answer” is like getting to a very rare mushroom that only grows above 200 feet on a Sequoia tree in the forbidden forest. https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
Recovered patients: detection specimens for up to 12 weeks.
Recovered patients can continue to have SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in their upper respiratory specimens for up to 12 weeks.Korea CDC, 2020; Li et al., 2020; Xiao et al, 2020
Test do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection
Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. (page 3)
COVID diagnostic test: worst test ever devised?
by Jon Rappoport; September 10, 2020
The need for the COVID test is being hyped to the skies. More tests automatically create more case numbers. This allows heads of state and national governments to whipsaw the public:
“We were re-opening the economy, but now, with the escalating case numbers, we’ll have to impose lockdowns again…”
This wreaks more havoc and economic destruction, which is the true goal of the COVID operation. Its cruelty is boundless.
In this article, I present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus, the PCR.
Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.
In search of the SARS-COV-2 identification records
July 14, 2020
Exosome versus Virus
Have you heard of the emerging theory of what viruses might be: exosomes? Are you absolutely certain that COVID-19 is contagious? How confident are you in the results from the test? Most of the case studies come from this paper by David Crowe, where he has all of his citations at the end: https://bit.ly/2A25TbA
Intercellular communication by exosomes plays a critical role in the regulation of cellular and physiological processes. Exosomes were first described in the early 1980s.
Exosomes are of special interest in the field of medicine. Their ability to stimulate immune responses, for instance, has made them of particular interest in the development of novel approaches to vaccination, including the development of vaccines to treat certain cancers. In addition, because exosomes are found in body fluids such as blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid, they are promising biomarkers for the detection of disease.
COVID19 -Centers for disease control and Prevention
CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019- nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Test for Past Infection (Antibody Test)
If you test positive: A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.
a positive result is inconclusive but we register it as a COVID-19 case anyway
If you test negative: You may not have ever had COVID-19. You could still have a current infection. It’s possible you could still get sick if you have been exposed to the virus recently. This means you could still spread the virus.
Some people may take even longer to develop antibodies, and some people who are infected may not ever develop antibodies.
Everything is possible!
If you test negative for COVID-19, you probably were not infected at the time your sample was collected. However, that does not mean you will not get sick.
The test result only means that you did not have COVID-19 at the time of testing.
You may test negative if the sample was collected early in your infection and test positive later during your illness.
You could also be exposed to COVID-19 after the test and get infected then.
This means you could still spread the virus. If you develop symptoms later, you may need another test to determine if you are infected with the virus that causes COVID-19.
Oracular -if you test negative that does not mean you will not get sick
Guidance on interpreting COVID-19 test results
Viral testing Positive: Most likely* you DO currently have an active COVID-19 infection and can give the virus to others
From the footnotes: No test is ever perfect. All tests occasionally result in false positive results (the test result should be negative because you DO NOT have COVID-19 but comes back positive) or false negative results (the test result should be positive
because you DO have COVID-19, but comes back negative). Sometimes the results are not definitive (the result is unclear, and you don’t know if it is positive or negative).
A positive antibody test result is inconclusive and everything is possible; you can still get sick. A negative viral test doesn’t mean you will not get sick. A positive viral test tells you “most likely” you do have an COVID-19 infection. And the small print says “No test is ever perfect”.
Worlds top-scientists are ignored and censored; Politicians proclaim a lockdown based on “we don’t know but we do know that everything is possible”
Below pdf created from link on July 16, 2020
Questioning the validity of the PCR test Result from a quality assurance / management perspective
Quality assurance is a concept that encompasses all matters that individually or collectively influence the quality of a product.
The product in this case: “the (positive) PCR test result” and why a positive test, at max, is an INDICATION that the person is actually infected explained below.
The current conditions under which a test is administered (particularly the test centres, in the Netherlands the Corona-drive-in) makes it impossible to demonstrate that the “Nucleic Acid” found (RNA particle) actually comes from the person in question.
Keywords “Cross-Contamination” “Certificate-of-analysis” and maybe most importantly “Chain-of-Custody”.
The PCR test is/has been decisive for corona measures since the outbreak of a (so-called) “killer virus” COVID-19. A Positive Corona-PCR test has turned our society completely upside down and continues to do so with freedom-restricting measures.
Besides the fact that the quickly put together PCR test has been declared completely inadequate and unreliable by many scientists, I wonder what the actual (legal) validity of the test result is for the following reason: All COVID-19 test samples are run only once in different conditions so COVID-19 testing doesn’t have reproducibility and repeatability.
Within the EU there are strict rules regarding the production and distribution of medicines. These rules are described in documents … Annex-1 to 17
Annex-1, the most comprehensive, 52 pages, focuses on “Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products” and Annex-15, “Qualification and Validation” (16 pages).
For example, an important aspect is the continuous measurement of air quality in production areas measuring the number of particles present in this area. No Costs or efforts are saved to show that values of particle-size (0.5µm – 5.0µm) limits are NOT exceeded. If measurement of a value exceeds a limit, all alarm bells go of and quality professionals turn into a state of alarm.
Cross-contamination, the validation of production surfaces with regard to purity. Guidelines have been drawn up whereby the producer must demonstrate that the production surfaces of production resources such as equipment must be spick-and-span. The so-called MAC value (Maximum Allowable Carry-over) is an important measure; I’m talking about about measurements in picogram (0.00000000001 gram). Next the WC should be determined. Not your daily bathroom but the Worst-Case situation needs to be calculated.
Again no costs or efforts are saved to ensure that the final product in bottle, tablet, powder or soft-gel arrives, without contamination, at the pharmacy or drugstore.
Back to the COVID-PCR test and the test locations. In busy times the locations house several sick / infected persons at the same time in the same area. Coughing and sneezing, spreading Virus RNA in the air.
Who’s Who to show me that the virus particle detected by PCR on my swab is actually mine; a swab taken in an area filled with aerosols (contaminated) by other people!?
Who’s Who to show me that my swab is processed (daily with thousands at a time) according to the so-called GLP protocol (Good Laboratory Practices).
Who’s Who to provide me with an overview of the so-called “chain-of-custody”? Documentation covering the entire process of acquisition, transfer, handling and removal of materials.
Overdone? Fair enough, at least provide me with a COA – Certificate of Analysis. A document with the details of the specific test(s) / method(s) performed with associated values used … including of course the PCR-test “CT” value.
This story could be much longer and more detailed, but it would become some sort of an annex summary with many pages… my conclusion in short:
All COVID-19 test samples are run only once in different conditions so COVID-19 testing doesn’t have reproducibility and repeatability. And therefore the PCR test Result is unreliable!
COVID19 is a Pandemic of fear, fleeing in logic in which we restrict reality, resulting in destroying society and at the same time creating dangerous social mechanisms.