How the CDC, FDA and USA Today Misrepresented The Effectiveness of Covid PCR Tests

Executive Summary

• The CDC and FDA lied about the effectiveness of the PCR test, and USA Today served as a PR firm to cover up why they lost their emergency use authorization.

Introduction

The CDC and FDA misled the public about the PRC (Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction) test. The proposed it could determine if someone had covid when it couldn’t. They needed a way to remove the test from use without admitting that all of the previous positive results that were used to drive the covid pandemic to a fever pitch were not valid.

For this, compliant “fact-checking” entities like USA Today were enlisted to provide false information to the public and to cover up the CDC and FDA’s errors.

Our References for This Article

To see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

Understanding the PCR Test’s Ineffectiveness

To understand the PCR test and why it is ineffective for determining if a person has covid, see the article Understanding the PCR Test and How There Was Never A Reliable Test for Covid.

This article does not get into that topic. Instead, it focuses on how establishment media entities have served as PR front ends for pharmaceutical companies and health authorities, providing false information about PCR testing.

How USA Today Spun the CDC Dropping the PCR Test

Almost a year after the WHO disavowed the PCR test, the CDC moved away from it. However, USA Today, like Reuters and Politifact, constantly put out false information called “fact-checking,” which helped the CDC spin why it also dropped the PCR.

A widely shared claim on social media has brought the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to retire its PCR test for COVID-19 back into the spotlight.

“CDC Withdraws Use of PCR Test for COVID and Finally Admits the Test Can Not Differentiate Between the Flu and COVID Virus,” reads the screenshot of a Gateway Pundit headline posted on Instagram on Dec. 29.

The Gateway Pundit article, posted the same day, refers to the CDC’s decision in July to withdraw the PCR test in 2022 that the agency created. The screenshot was liked more than 1,000 times in less than 24 hours. Other posts also received hundreds of likes in just a few hours.

But the claim badly mangles the facts.

The CDC’s PCR test will be removed from the list of tests under emergency use authorization because the demand for it has decreased with the authorization of other diagnostic tests – not because it confuses viruses. Experts say the test would not show false positives for COVID-19 if the person only had the flu. – USA Today

Really?

What is left out from this quote and this article is that the WHO disavowed the test around 12 months prior. The WHO stated that CDC PCR tests are not effective in detecting covid.

Let us review what the WHO stated at that time.

The WHO also cautions health care providers not to rely only on the results of a PCR test to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but to “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.” In other words, just because a PCR test comes back positive for SARS-CoV-2 should not be the sole consideration for determining if someone has the virus. What is interesting is that within days of WHO guidance being issued, the number of new coronavirus cases reported in the United States began to markedly decline. The New York Times reported on Jan. 22 that, “In recent days, coronavirus cases have been dropping steadily across the United States.” – The Vaccine Reaction 

If the PCR test worked, other factors would not be necessary. Furthermore, part of the WHO guidance was to decrease the number of cycles for which the test was run, which reduced cases. This means that the previous cases of supposed covid were mainly false positives.

Why did USA Today leave out this vital information?

Furthermore, why would declining demand cause the test to no longer be used? It is critical that the CDC not let on that most of the positive covid results from the PCR test were false positives.

The quote continues.

In an August news release, the CDC wrote the PCR test was specifically designed only to detect the viral genetic material of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 – not influenza, which causes the flu.

“It does not detect influenza or differentiate between influenza and SARS-CoV-2,” the website states.

Interesting. Again, was the covid PCR test trained on covid?

The answer is it was not, which USA Today left out and did not want readers to know.

The quote from USA Today continues.

In other words, it’s not that the test can’t tell the two apart, it’s that the test was designed only to detect COVID-19. The CDC spelled this one by noting someone with the flu would not create a false positive for COVID-19 with this test.

It is known that because the number of cycles was never standardized, processes between 35 and 45 gave false positives. The FDA never provided manufacturers any guidance on how many cycles to run.

The quote continues.

Experts told USA TODAY in July it’s “technically impossible” for the CDC’s PCR test to confuse SARS-CoV-2 and the influenza virus.

Who are these experts?

The term “experts” is routinely used by USA Today, but how do we check these experts’ financial bias or organization affiliation? And there is no reason not to name the experts that USA Today spoke with.

The USA Today quote continues.

PCR tests identify and amplify converted viral RNA until the virus’s genetic makeup can be detected and analyzed.

In this case, since the CDC’s PCR test was made to only identify SARS-Cov-2, it cannot detect or confuse the genetic sequences of another virus such as influenza, according to Dr. Petros Giannikopoulos, medical director of the Innovative Genomics Institute’s COVID-19 testing consortium.

Here the expert is named. However, the CDC’s PCR test was never trained on covid. USA Today can keep saying what the test was designed to do, but that does not mean it does that.

The USA Today quote continues.

CDC withdrawing PCR test to focus on other goals
On July 21, the CDC announced it would withdraw the request for an emergency use authorization for the agency-developed PCR test after Dec. 31.

If the test is practical, why is it being removed from use? This means that after December 31, this test can no longer be used. There a many PCR tests still in circulation.

Why can’t they continue to be used (if they have usefulness)?

The USA Today quote continues.

The test will be removed because the Food and Drug Administration, which is in charge of approving the use of medical devices and vaccines, has authorized “hundreds” of other COVID-specific tests similar to the CDC’s, the agency said in an Aug. 2 clarification after the announcement sparked confusion.

“CDC began distributing the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel to fill a gap,” the release said. “The wide availability of other SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests means that the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is no longer filling an unmet need.”

That does not make any sense.

If the CDC PCR test works, why can it no longer be used after Dec 31? There can be multiple covid tests.

The critical feature of a test is whether it works or if new tests have been introduced. Instead, you would add the latest tests and not remove the EUA authorization of an existing practical test.

But we found a good quote that explains what the CDC is doing and what USA Today is helping the CDC to do.

The CDC is withdrawing this PCRT method most likely because they know the test cannot withstand reasonable scientific scrutiny. They’re trying to cover their tracks and memory hole the fraudulent test that were used to drive the phantom nCoV – 2 – 19 “Plandemic” in the first place. But we already know the CDC is a front for the vaccine industry, and that the CDC has no scientific credibility or authority whatsoever when it comes to legitimate infectious disease testing. – Rights Freedom

The USA Today quote continues.

The CDC has its own test that can detect and differentiate COVID-19 and the influenza A and B viruses. That test is not being withdrawn.

USA TODAY reached out to the CDC for comment.

Our rating: False
Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that the CDC withdrew the use of its PCR test and admitted it can’t distinguish between the flu and COVID-19.

Part of this fact check is genuine. The CDC did not state that their PCR test cannot distinguish between covid and influenza. However, their test cannot distinguish covid from other respiratory illnesses, but the CDC did not admit it.

The quote continues.

The CDC is withdrawing the test, but it has nothing to do with the flu. The agency-created PCR test simply isn’t needed because hundreds of tests from private companies have addressed this need and been approved by the FDA. The CDC test properly showed positive results only for COVID-19; a person with the flu could not test positive for COVID-19 using the CDC test, experts say.

There is another major problem with USA Today’s article. And that is the fact that the limitations of PCR tests are widely known, and the CDC and USA Today are providing false information on this topic. Observe the following quotes.

Right now the entire globe (except, perhaps Sweden) has been beaten into submission based on RT-PCR testing, which is not appropriate for diagnosing the viral infection that is supposedly threatening the world. This continued use of a bogus yardstick for measurement is a massive WASTE OF RESOURCES, not to mention the biggest CON JOB ever sprung on such a huge number of people.

The WHO are criminal liars–PCR cannot detect viral load in anyone–it is not a diagnostic test, which says so on the package insert. What is does do is pick up infection but cannot tell what it’s from at all. Sometimes it just picks up and old molecule of infection from years ago and they call it “positive” for Covid-19.

There are no cases and no deaths at all worldwide for Covid-19 because PCR cannot diagnose anything says the inventor Kary Mullis:

PCR tests need tp stop immediately and when it does the scam stops too. Kary Mullis died in August of 2019 which tells us something very revealing about this hoax. – Comment on The Vaccine Reaction Article

Here, the inventor of the PRC process explains that it should not be used as a test. Mullis’s definition of “misuse of PCR” is precise as it is used by the CDC to “claim that it is meaningful.”

How Does Anyone Know if the Replacement Tests Will Work

Tests that do not work have been used to create fake covid case statistics. And this testing was lied about by the FDA and CDC until Jan 2021, but the WHO. Who would have any confidence that the tests that replace them work?

This is addressed in the following quotation.

The entire nCoV – 2 – 19 “plandemic” has been based upon non-specific PCRT testing, and now the CDC announced it is pulling the most frequently used test, perhaps in an effort to replace the test with yet another testing protocol that can be controlled by so-called health authorities to possibly worsen the “pandemic” on demand (or, perhaps, claim that nCoV – 2 – 19 has been eliminated and declare victory over another nonexistent virus and illusionary Pandemic!

From the very start, the entire pandemic has been nothing but a globally coordinated PCRT testing ‘casedemic’. PCRT instruments cannot determine quantitative results. They do not use quantitative instrument calibration curves or quantitative external nCoV standards. This means PCR instruments have no legitimate role in diagnosing any person with illness or a nCoV – 2 or 19 infection. – Rights Freedoms

Conclusion

USA Today routinely writes fact-checking articles that merely suppose the establishment narrative. None of these articles require any critical thinking. USA Today thinks it must be true if the CDC says something. The CDC routinely releases false information, and their predictions since the beginning of the pandemic have been consistently wrong and consistently wrong in the most alarming fashion, so not being able to question information provided by the CDC is a severe problem. USA Today functions as a PR outlet for the CDC and any other member of the medical establishment. This does not meet the definition of “fact-checking.” This is PR or establishment narrative echoing.

There is no evidence that the PCR test ever worked. (There is also no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines create antibodies against COVID-19.)

• 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 they knew it.
• Even after the WHO disavowed the PCR test in January (which many other people with the right background knew before this), PCR tests continue to be used. Data, graphics, and statistical analysis are beautiful things. However, its usability entirely relies on data integrity, so it is useless to perform statistical analysis without that.

Addressing the Damage

One of the best ways to address the damage caused by the covid vaccines is with Ivermectin. This is the reason I began taking Ivermectin -- before investigating all the other health benefits of the drug. Now, I take Ivermectin for many reasons.

• We have Ivermectin dosage calculators based on research studies and for all the different uses of Ivermectin.
• We are the only web source offering an Ivermectin dosage calculator in addition to different dosage estimates for different cancer types.
• All of our calculators are easy to use (see our dosage calculator listing). Each person enters their personalized information into the calculator and receives our recommended extensively researched dosage estimate automatically and immediately calculated.
• We also cover the broader problems with dosage calculation in medicine at the article The Problem With Dosage Calculation in Medicine, as this is an issue much larger than for one drug. 

About Our Ivermecting Testing Program and Recommended Ivermectin Source of Supply

• We performed pharmaceutical testing on Ivermectin to find a lower-cost version that also matched Merck's original Ivermectin in bioequivalence.
• You can read about the details of our Ivermectin testing in this article, Our Ivermectin Bioequivalence Testing.
• We got Summit Products to carry this version of Ivermectin, which passed our bioequivalence testing. 

Sharing This Article

Share this article with a friend or family member by copying this article link and pasting it into your email so they can read the same information.