PCR test study used as foundation for use of test for Covid-19; scientists discover it is a fraud
PCR test is not meant to detect infections
…as stated by the inventor of the test Kary Mullis. Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the invention of this test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEWRUnAQpK8
‘Case’ numbers perversion
Exposed by Dr. Erickson https://www.bitchute.com/video/aNzoLVFF5f8w/
Standard (international or national) for how laboratories define positive vs. negative outcomes for the PCR test, DOES NOT EXIST
The high cycle threshold values of most PCR tests—at 40 cycles or higher—increases the risk of false positives, and scientists and even Dr. Fauci agree that anything higher than 35 is a fall positive. A higher threshold value indicates less viral load and that the person is less likely to be infectious, while a person with a lower cycle threshold value could have a higher viral load, or could more infectious. But as the test is amplifying fragments of DNA rather than an actual organism, the rest is meaningless anyway.
The WHO did not specify what the threshold value cutoff should be for a positive diagnosis, but said to only “determine if [a] manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says its PCR tests have a cycle threshold cutoff of 40 cycles. The CDC finally included information on cycle threshold value in its Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 for laboratories on Nov. 12, 2020. Again, anything above 35, and many thing, above 30, is a false positive.
World Health Organization Warns of ‘False Positives’ in PCR Tests for Covid-19, Says Some Patients May Not Be ‘Truly Infected’
The day that Biden recommitted to the united States of American taxpayers funding the WHO, the WHO quietly updated their guidance on their website.
Suddenly, the WHO seems to acknowledge what doctors have been saying since last March…and that moving forward, diagnoses should only be made in with a second confirmatory test, AND a clinical presentation of symptoms. That means that there is a very high probability that the asymptomatic cases they used to justify lockdowns for a year weren’t contagious. Experts knew this, and scientists knew this, and the government officials looked at us in the face and lied to us anyway.
“Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken.”
The World Health Organization released a statement on December 14, 2020 that finally owned up to the “Problem” of flawed PCR tests amid a flurry of lawsuits exposing the incompetence of public health officials and policymakers for reliance on a diagnostic test not meant to diagnose disease. WHO admitted that the PCR test is arbitrary because “…many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.” Since it is well known that the PCR test is, in fact, being used as the primary diagnostic tool, WHO apparently was compelled to remove this message from the Internet.
A month later, WHO issued a medical product alert on January 20 that stated “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis,” which means the PCR test is not itself a diagnostic tool, but merely an aid in diagnosis. WHO recommends that “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.” In other words, the PCR test alone is not adequate, and that other factors, including who you have been near, must be considered to determine whether someone is “truly infected”.
The World Health Organization is warning that widely deployed technology used to test for COVID-19 may, if interpreted incorrectly, lead at least some patients to believe they have the virus when in fact they are not “truly infected.”
In a “medical product alert” issued last week, the WHO said that anyone “interpreting results for [COVID-19] specimens tested using [polymerase chain reaction] methodology” should be aware that “careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed.”
The WHO’s alert specifically addresses a controversial aspect of COVID-19 PCR tests: the “cycle threshold,” or the number of amplification cycles the test must undergo before detecting a COVID-19 specimen.
If a test must go through a high number of cycles before detecting the COVID virus, it potentially indicates that the original viral specimen was weak and the patient from whom it came may not be infectious or even “truly infected,” as the WHO put it in its announcement.
- WHO advisory dated January 20, 2021: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
- Additional source: https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/
CDC quietly reduced PCR cycle threshold for testing COVID ‘breakthrough’ infections to <=28, from 40
“In a move to investigate COVID-19 breakthrough infections among persons vaccinated against the virus, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has announced new and revised testing measures just for vaccinated individuals.
During 2020 through April 2021, the CDC recommended something called a PCR threshold of 40, meaning that the test would be considered positive even if it took 40 testing cycles to find a tiny shred of virus. During the height of the pandemic, critics said that threshold was too high, as it was marking people positive when they actually had only genetic fragments or leftovers from an infection that posed no risk of contagion.
The New York Times likened those tests as “akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left.” Criticisms aside, the high threshold testing procedure stayed in place — until now.
With more and more breakthrough cases being reported, the CDC quietly changed its PCR threshold for testing breakthrough infections to 28 or less. This means that far fewer cases will be identified as positive than were they to stay at the 40 threshold. “The entire epidemic would have very different if  had been used [for a regular infection],” Alex Berensen tweeted.
On its website, the CDC noted that it also would not test every breakthrough case, but instead would “focus on identifying and investigating only vaccine breakthrough infections that result in hospitalization or death” — a move that will also lower the total case counts among vaccinated individuals.”
Read the full article at Mercola.
- CDC Vaccine Breakthrough Testing Measures
- Alex Berensen April 29, 2021
- CDC Breakthrough Case Investigations April 16, 2021
- The New York Times August 29, 2020
23 Americans Tested Positive for Flu Last Week Compared to 14,657 Reported Last Year at Same Time
The reported number of flu cases in the US is at an all-time low this flu season. The website Weather.com reports that, during the second week of January, only 23 people tested positive for the flu in the US compared with 14,657 people who tested positive during the same time last year. Authorities say this is because of the large number of people who received flu shots this year and because of social distancing. They do not mention the fact that, over the past year, almost any illness is labeled as Covid-19 and that deaths from many other causes, including poisonings, shootings, homicides and hospice deaths, also were re-designated as Covid-19 deaths. The total number of deaths did not change significantly, which is evidence that flu cases are under reported and Covid cases are over reported.
- Additional source: https://weather.com/health/cold-flu/news/2021-01-13-flu-cases-coronavirus
CDC withdraws PCR test because it can’t distinguish between flu and COVID
The CDC quietly announced last week that it was withdrawing its request to the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the 2019-Novel Coronavirus PCR Diagnostic Panel for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (the name for the COVID-19 virus) because it can’t detect and differentiate SARS-CoV-2 from influenza viruses.
Read the full article here.