What is the science behind the test used to determine if I have COVID-19?

Fielden R. Nolan 0 Comments 02/12/2021  (This is a Level 0 Blog)

Posted By: Fielden Nolan (nolanf)
Post Date: 02/12/2021

The startling facts about the PCR test.

- February 12, 2021 (Fielden R. Nolan)

A fundamental truth about the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, which is currently the standard used to determine if a person has contracted the COVID-19 virus, is this: it was never designed to be a diagnostic tool. The PCR test can be effective in a clean room environment to determine if a production compromise or spill has occurred. This is what it was designed to do. It cannot distinguish between common cold, seasonal flu viruses or a specific member of the coronovirus family. The seriousness of this problem cannot be understated. The reason why the PCR test can’t resolve down to the actual COVID-19 is simply put: it was never designed to.

If you believe the PCR test is effective in determining whether one has contracted the COVID-19 virus, you are in opposition to what the actual inventor of the test has claimed, as well as the doctors and scientists who have formally called for a retraction of the Corman-Drosten paper, which was published on January 23, 2020 and ultimately drove the decision to use the PCR test worldwide to determine a COVID “case.”

It was waved through, it was not peer-reviewed. There’s no standard operational procedure for this test." (Source)

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. (Source)

The entire case for WHO-mandated emergency lockdown of businesses, schools, churches and other social arenas worldwide is based on a test introduced, amazingly early on, in the Wuhan, China coronavirus saga. On January 23, 2020, in the scientific journal Eurosurveillance, of the EU Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Dr. Christian Drosten, along with several colleagues from the Berlin Virology Institute at Charite Hospital, along with the head of a small Berlin biotech company, TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH, published a study claiming to have developed the first effective test for detecting whether someone is infected with the novel coronavirus identified first only days before in Wuhan. The Drosten article was titled, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020). (Source)

Dr. Christian Drosten is currently the subject of several criminal proceedings for a number of revealing reasons. (Source) He pushed through his PCR test directly to the WHO, in violation of his agreement with his employer. The authenticity and location of his doctoral dissertation is a mystery.

Dr. Anthony Fauci admits Drosten’s PCR test, at the cycle rate typically employed, results in many false-positive cases that result in overstating the threat. The FDA and the WHO have both admitted PCR tests show unacceptable numbers of false positives, yet the test remains the standard.

It would take hours to give this PCR fraud the attention it deserves. PCR tests are, at a minimum, a hit-and-miss proposition and areunsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

No scientist worth his salt would seriously challenge this conclusion:

PCR was not designed for mass testing because of the sensitivity and risk of contamination. There are serious flaws in many of the protocols employed, which were hurriedly put together, some without peer review. The operational false positive rate is unknown and therefore every positive test could be false, unless accompanied by clinical examination.” (Peter Andrews, Science Journalist)

Andrews, a geneticist, referenced with alarm the 2020 Corman-Drosten Report Review, which exposed “ten fatal flaws” with the test, summarized the findings:

The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality. We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.

This paper will show numerous serious flaws in the Corman-Drosten paper, the significance of which has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19. We are confronted with stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods, limited access to education and these imposed restrictions by governments around the world are a direct attack on people’s basic rights and their personal freedoms, resulting in collateral damage for entire economies on a global scale.

The study used to justify the use of the PCR test was not peer-reviewed. The authors did their own editing, four of which are tied to probable conflict-of-interest problems. The test design was vague and flawed, and there was no SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) referenced.

Another problem the Corman-Drosten paper faced is also a problem the CDC faced when constructing US response policy to the virus: no actual sample of the virus was available to them!

The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. (Source)

Without validation at the biomolecular level, any test is useless as a diagnostic tool. The fraud behind the implementation worldwide of the PCR test is readily apparent. Do a simple web search: the outrage is off the charts.

It should be noted here that there is considerable doubt that the COVID-19 virus was ever actually isolated. If the virus was never isolated at the biomolecular level, there can be no certain determination as to whether or not one has contracted it. In fact, we cannot even be sure the virus exists!

It’s apparent that the fraud behind the use of the PCR test for COVID-19 case determination is deep and profound, and is international in scope. We’ve been scammed.

How does the PCR test actually work? They use a calibrated “cycle threshold” which can be considered a “sensitivity control.” The higher the control is set (the more cycles are applied) the more sensitive it becomes. The higher the number of cycles (cycle threshold, or Ct) needed to detect the virus, the smaller and weaker the original sample was. Many U.S. labs use 35-45 cycles while many European labs work with 30 to 40 cycles (Source).

According to The New York Times, up to 90 percent of positive tests at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a cycle threshold of 30.14.

Another researcher demonstrated that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher the chance that the person is infectious is less than three percent. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result above 35 cycles is 97 percent or higher. (Source)

How bad is this problem? Possibly as high as inaccuracies of 1600%!

The CDC inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600%, according to a peer-reviewed study, “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective.” The 25-page study exposed testing inaccuracies and unscientific procedures that resulted in enormous false-positive spikes. (Source)

When PCR cycles are ratcheted down to higher levels, the process can detect dead virus fragments. It is for this reason that the New York Times published an article stating that as many as 90% of COVID-19 tests in three states were not indicative of active illness. Nevertheless, as of December 1, 2020, the CDC still uses a cycle threshold (Ct) of 40, which is guaranteed to produce profoundly inaccurate results in most people.

Another problem exists related to the use of higher cycle threshholds. A doctor of Naturopathic Medicine from the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in Toronto determined that with the PCR test, given enough repetition cycles, can detect a chromosome which is present in all humans:

Sometimes chromosome 8 (aka “COVID-19)” is detected, other times it is not detected by the PCR test. The reason why it is not always detected is that the PCR test sample (“primer”) must be amplified. And if the “primer” is not sufficiently amplified, the DNA sequence will not be identifiable. This is the scam. If amplified sufficiently, what has been identified as the” COVID-19 virus ” (aka chromosome 8) will always be detected. That limit point for amplification cycles determines a positive or negative result.

Now you know why the test gives 80% false-positive results for COVID-19 and why so many people tested positive are described as asymptomatic. They don’t have any COVID-19. They have what everyone has, chromosome 8. (Source)

There is no "science" behind the use of PCR tests in a diagnostic context. This is not an issue of interpretation or even discussion. The fact that inflated numbers are used to drive our response to COVID-19 should alarm any person capable of critical thought.

VIEW Blog Item

They're Changing the Meaning of Science

Psycho desk jockies and pencil pushers are attempting to redefine science.

VIEW News Item

‘Urgent’ British report calls for complete cessation of COVID vaccines in humans

“The MHRA now has more than enough declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe...”
VIEW News Item

Dr. Mercola: Public Health Officials Are Lying About Lockdowns (video)

CDC Inflated COVID-19 Deaths by 1,670%, Violated Fed Law
VIEW News Item


VIEW News Item

Not Just Masks: Biden CDC Surrender Also Includes Changes to Coronavirus Testing for Vaccinated People

“If vaccines work…then why do people who have the vaccine need to now wear masks?”
VIEW News Item

CDC issues new COVID cleaning guidelines

Updated to “reflect the science on transmission.”
VIEW News Item

Legal Help For Religious Exceptions From Vaccinations

Denied? You will first need to file an EEOC Complaint
VIEW News Item

NY: COVID checkpoints are back: Cops will be out 'in force'

Questions Thanksgiving travelers from out of state

We appreciate your donations to NOMASKERS.ORG, because without them this site would not be possible. You do not need a PayPal account in order to donate with your credit card. Just click on the Donate button below. You will be prompted for the amount you wish to contribute.

/* */