Thread by @JoshWalkos

Mega Thread: The PCR “Test”

You know the now ubiquitous test, a long piece of plastic with a bulbous end that has ridges on it, that you shove up your nose until you almost stab your brain. We have been told it can test for COVID but is this truly the case?

#PCRTEST

Much like everything else we have been told during the “pandemic”, this turns out to be a gross misrepresentation. Until we understand this fully, it will be used again to foment more fear and panic.

PCR IS NOT A TEST.

Kind of like how the Vaccines aren’t actually Vaccines.

First lets learn more about what PCR actually is and establish a baseline understanding. Then we will look at who decided this would be a trojan horse to create the public perception that a dangerous virus was spreading rapidly throughout the world population, even in the healthy

PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction

“Sometimes called "molecular photocopying," the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a fast and inexpensive technique used to "amplify" - copy - small segments of DNA.

Because significant amounts of a sample of DNA are necessary for molecular and genetic analyses, studies of isolated pieces of DNA are nearly impossible without PCR amplification.”

genome.gov/about-genomics…

PCR was invented by scientist Kary B. Mullis and in 1993 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. PCR is considered to be one of the most important discoveries in the field of molecular biology.

While Mullis was alive he was an outspoken critic of the way his invention was being used. He knew that PCR can detect almost anything microbial but it was not designed as a clinical diagnostic test.

“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, right?“

“Because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something that 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 them in your body.”

“PCR is separate from that, it’s just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. 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.”

Here is a clip of him discussing this. I don’t know about you but I’d say he has the authority to make statements like this and we should be inclined to believe him.

Cycle Thresholds otherwise known as ‘amplification” are used to detect a virus or nucleotides. This is key because the CT setting, meaning the number of cycles ,needs to be set at between 1-30 to reliably detect viral loads.

If the CT is set higher than 30, it may detect dead viral fragment but there will be so few that it cannot be relied upon to determine a positive test or infection/illness. Again, the cycle thresholds can be adjusted to seemingly find anything the user wants to find.

The higher the cycle/amplification, the higher the likelihood you will find something.

To further this point here is a quote from an official CDC document titled:

“CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel,”

fda.gov/media/134922/d…

They admit that PCR Tests do not automatically assume Covid-19 positive infections and can be misinterpreted as something else…

‘SARS-CoV-2 RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with SARS-CoV-2 but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.”

“The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions.

Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.”

And yet they thought it would be a reliable method to help control the spread of the virus on a worldwide basis.

In regards to the cycle threshold, don’t take my word for it, none other than Tony Fauci stated as such on an episode of This Week in Virology in July 2020. Listen for yourself.

It simply is not a diagnostic tool for infections and disease.

The paper of record The New York Times ran a story that elucidates the shortcomings of PCR to accurately assess whether or not a person is infected or contagious.

nytimes.com/2020/08/29/hea…

“We have been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.”

“But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, i think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.”

“The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.”

This next quote is very revealing in regards to the true number of “cases” that were being reported.

“In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

So 90 percent of the results weren’t applicable and should have been thrown out. The FDA never provided guidance on what the CT Values should be set at to ensure accuracy and to determine if the viral load was significant enough to be recorded as a positive test.

We don’t know the CT Value’s of the PCR tests that were being used worldwide because unbelievably it wasn’t factored into the decision making of our public health institutions. I would venture to say that the CT Values were most likely set too high (above 30ct)

and the data gleaned from all of those tests should be considered unreliable. If we consider this in context, this means the mass testing was nothing more than a way to further pandemic policies, i.e. lockdowns, masking, social distancing etc.. It was all rubbish.

The failure of our institutions to take into account the CT Values of the tests that were used under Emergency Use Authorization is a further indictment of their unwillingness to conduct basic public health policy in a responsible, scientific manner.

You are probably wondering, how was this allowed to happen? Who or what is responsible for selecting PCR as a way to test for COVID worldwide? Surely they have evidence that using the PCR in this way is legitimate right?

January 2020 - Enter German virologist Professor Dr. Christian Drosten.

Christian is a corona star in Germany and in the world of virology. He is the Director of the Berlin Charité Institute, a premier biomedical research institute and serves as a very influential advisor to the German government.

He always seems to forecast worst case scenarios that need to be remedied by taking a vaccine.

So many coincidences.

He first entered the public health fray when the first SARS outbreak occurred in 2003. He predicted that Germany’s economy could expect a serious impact from the outbreak when in reality only 9 cases were reported with 0 deaths.

Then in 2009 without any reliable data he become a proponent for swine flu vaccination. Once again the predicted epidemic didn’t happen but with the help of his evangelizing, millions of swine flu vaccines were ordered & caused more disease and suffering than the flu itself.

Sound familiar?

theguardian.com/business/2010/…

As a side note, if you want to learn more about the history of pandemic false alarms watch this clip from 60 Minutes about the Swine Flu Vaccinations given in 1976. They knew the neurological harm they caused and covered it up.

So given his terrible track record in predictions, of course our Public Health leaders looked towards him for guidance on testing for COVID. It cannot be understated how important it is to understand the PCR fraud because it is the Trojan Horse..

that allowed governments and institutions to usher in unprecedented restrictions on fundamental rights.

Without this test and its ability to massively inflate case numbers, none of it could happen.

They had to have something to point to that seemingly proved the virus was spreading rapidly worldwide among people without symptoms. The media then wildly exaggerated the significance, plastering “case counts” across every screen. “Case counts” that were extremely dubious.

The decision to employ PCR as a diagnostic test to detect SARS-Cov-2 was based on one paper authored by Drosten and his associates. Here is the paper if you’d like to look for yourself.

eurosurveillance.org/content/10.280…

What’s Christian fails to disclose to the public is that he has major conflicts of interest. If you look at the list of co-authors on that report, right on the first line you’ll see Olfert Landt.

Olfert is the owner of the Berlin biotech company TIB Molbiol and take a wild guess at what they produce? Corona PCR Tests and they were one of the first to market with these tests. What a profitable coincidence!

“The test, the design, the development, came from the Charité. We just immediately converted that into a kit format. When you don’t have the virus, which was initially only available in Wuhan,

we can make a synthetic gene [i.e. using computer modeling] to simulate the virus genome. We did that very quickly.”

This quote was given to the German Newspaper Berliner Zeitung by Olfert. Notice anything curious about it?

They made a synthetic gene to simulate the virus genome because at the time they didn’t have access to the wuhan strain. I’m not a scientist and don’t pretend to be but this seems quite curious, given that Olfert was making 1.5 million tests per week by February 2020

If anyone can enlighten me on how they simulated the virus and how that is a reliable method to mass produce tests I would love to here your thoughts. On its face it seems very suspicious. In any event this shows the obvious conflicts of interest between Drosten and Olfert.

So to recap:

The decision to use PCR as a diagnostic tool to detect coronavirus was based on one paper written by Christian Drosten and colleagues. Who incidentally authored the paper with Olfert Landt..

who owns a company that manufactures Coronavirus Tests and they were first to market as luck would have it. TIB Molibol was mass producing 1.5 million corona test per week just one month after the paper was published.

There is only one large problem though. The paper has since been thoroughly refuted by a group of 22 scientists who published this paper.

‘External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level”

346483715_External_peer_review_of_the_RTPCR_test_to_detect_SARS-CoV-2_reveals_10_major_scientific_flaws_at_the_molecular_and_methodological_level_consequences_for_false_positive_results

The authors identified 10 major errors in the report that show PCR test has inherent fallacies that render it useless for its stated purpose. I have provided the 10 errors identified below. This gets into the weeds a bit but is important to understanding the flaws in the test.

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify SC2

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a

Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SC2 virus and make inferences about infection

4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the
protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool.

9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

10. 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.

So there you have it folks, I have tried to provide a understandable, somewhat concise review of the evidence showing that the PCR Test, which was used to perpetuate the pandemic, strip people of their rights, destroy businesses,

…demonize human beings and separate them from dying family members is a fraudulent diagnostic method.

By using cranked up Cycle Thresholds, they were able to create a “casedemic” and most importantly a perception in the publics mind that there was a dangerous pathogen spreading worldwide and even if you don’t exhibit symptoms you were a threat to society.

So next time you are asked to be tested, push back on the notion, ask questions about the CT values, refer them to the ample evidence I’ve provided.

This cannot happen again and until there is a widespread understanding of this kind of fraud you can bet it will continue to be used. It all starts with the PCR Deception, it allowed for the pretext of every other draconian policy. Don’t let it happen again.