Understanding The PCR Test and How There Was Never a Reliable Test for Covid
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.
Introduction
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
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.
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].
No reason if Drosten wanted an accurate test, but there is a good reason if he wanted a test that produced false positives.
A Test That Cannot Be Reproduced and is Not Repeatable
To obtain reproducible and comparable results, it is essential to distinctively define the primer pairs. In the Corman-Drosten paper we observed six unspecified positions, indicated by the letters R, W, M and S (Table 2). The letter W means that at this position there can be either an A or a T; R signifies there can be either a G or an A; M indicates that the position may either be an A or a C; the letter S indicates there can be either a G or a C on this position.
This high number of variants not only is unusual, but it also is highly confusing for laboratories.
The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related. Therefore, the confusing unspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol. These unspecified positions should have been designed unequivocally.
These wobbly sequences have already created a source of concern in the field and resulted in a Letter to the Editor authored by Pillonel et al. [8] regarding blatant errors in the described sequences. These errors are self-evident in the Corman et al. supplement as well.
And this quote is from Dr. Lidiya Angelova.
PCR test study was performed without a sample of a potential infected person. It means that the laboratories which perform the test must use the exact same reagents and perform the test in the exact the same way.
The PCR test study wasn’t made with a real sample so when implemented on real samples the result may be differ. The technique which is used is not only complicated, and requires well trained personnel but also is very sensitive.
However, the way around the fact that the test is not repeatable is only to run the PCR test once. With only one test run, there is no risk of conflicting results.
Dr. Angelova continues.
It was sitting in the back in my mind bugging me off until I got it – results from the tests aren’t repeatable. Labs don’t run the same samples at least 3 times to avoid random error. If 2 of the samples show same result it is valid. Running the sample only one time means that the result could be an error which due to the reasons mentioned above is quite likely. It is one of the most simple rules to clinical and experimental sciences.
A Test That Can’t Distinguish Between Coronaviruses
The E gene primers also detect a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.
The genome of the coronavirus is the largest of all RNA viruses that infect humans and they all have a very similar molecular structure. Still, SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 have two highly specific genetic fingerprints, which set them apart from the other coronaviruses. First, a unique fingerprint-sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) is present in the N-protein of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 [13,14,15].Second, both SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV2 do not contain the HE protein, whereas all other coronaviruses possess this gene [13, 14]. So, in order to specifically detect a SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 PCR product the above region in the N gene should have been chosen as the amplification target.
Here is what the CDC says about the ability of the PCR test.
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
So, how many test results that said “covid” were covid?
Another issue with the covid PCR tests is found in the article The PCR Test Problems: How There is Often No Live Virus Found Below 24 Cycles.
A Test Without Standard Operating Procedures or Parameters
There should be a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) available, which unequivocally specifies the above parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries. It is very important to specify all primer parameters unequivocally. We note that this has not been done. Further, the Ct value to indicate when a sample should be considered positive or negative is not specified. It is also not specified when a sample is considered infected with SARS-CoV viruses. As shown above, the test cannot discern between virus and virus fragments, so the Ct value indicating positivity is crucially important. This Ct value should have been specified in the Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) and put on-line so that all laboratories carrying out this test have exactly the same boundary conditions. It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation. Laboratories all over Europe are left with a multitude of questions; which primers to order? which nucleotides to fill in the undefined places? which Tm value to choose? How many PCR cycles to run? At what Ct value is the sample positive? And when is it negative? And how many genes to test? Should all genes be tested, or just the E and RpRd gene as shown in Table 2 of the Corman-Drosten paper? Should the N gene be tested as well? And what is their negative control? What is their positive control?
This is amazing. How did this test ever get put into general use?
Mistakes Any Molecular Biologist Could Have Caught
Any molecular biologist familiar with RT-PCR design would have easily observed the grave errors present in the Corman-Drosten paper before the actual review process. We asked Eurosurveillance on October 26th 2020 to send us a copy of the peer review report. To date, we have not received this report and in a letter dated November 18th 2020, the ECDC as host for Eurosurveillance declined to provide access without providing substantial scientific reasons for their decision. On the contrary, they write that “disclosure would undermine the purpose of scientific investigations.”
A Rigged Publication and Conflicts of Interest
A final point is one of major concern. It turns out that two authors of the Corman-Drosten paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, are also members of the editorial board of this journal [19]. Hence there is a severe conflict of interest which strengthens suspicions that the paper was not peer-reviewed. It has the appearance that the rapid publication was possible simply because the authors were also part of the editorial board at Eurosurveillance. This practice is categorized as compromising scientific integrity.
We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.
A Test Which Can’t be Used
RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis. These are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.
More on this topic is found in the following quotation.
Mike Adams Had This to Say About PCRT Testing
“I run multiple mass spec instruments in my private lab, including QQQ and ICP-MS instruments. I am the co-developer of two quantitative methods that were painstakingly developed for quantitating glyphosate molecules in food, and for cannabinoid concentrations in hemp extracts. I am intimately familiar with instrument calibration, external standards, curve fit equations and quantitative analysis. PCR instruments are not capable of any of this. They are useless for diagnosing infectious disease, as they cannot produce viral load concentration results from a given sample.” – Rights Freedom
Can Any Test Correctly Perceive Covid?
None of the tests can tell if someone is sick i.e. has the disease COVID-19. All tests have only emergency use authorization which means coronavirus tests as the vaccines aren’t validated by a government agency.
Hmmm…so we do not have and have never had a test to determine if someone has covid — while there has been enormous focus on the aggregated numbers of cases accumulated through tests that do not work.
Antibody Test: Also Does Not Work
This kind of test shows if you have antibodies against the virus. It could be used as a proof that you are already immune to coronavirus but could react to the other four common cold coronaviruses (cross-reactivity). Antibody test cannot tell if you currently have a virus. This test as the PCR should not be used to put someone in quarantine.
I do not think this test is used, but it also shows that it cannot be used.
The Importance of Ivermectin Versus the Covid Vaccines
One of the best ways to address the damage caused by the covid vaccines is to use Ivermectin.
- 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.