Three Documented Articles About the Deeply Flawed PCR Test Which Has Grossly – and Deceptively – Over-stated the Incidence – As Well as the Mortality – of Covid-19 in America
Collated by Gary G. Kohls, MD – February 25, 2021 (2581 words)
Nobody Knows for Certain How Many Americans Actually Died Because of a Covid-19 Infection and How Many Died Because They Were Terminally-ill/Frail/Elderly Patients Who Died from Their Lethal Co-morbidities – whether they had a False Positive PCR Test – or not.
Please watch this a highly informative 2-minute video about the fatal flaws of the PCR test from Dr Alex Vasquez ICHNFM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1fhMM0GT4w
1] CDC Statistics Show that Only 6% of America’s “Covid-19 Deaths” Were Listed as the Sole Cause of Death
(Which Means that the Actual Causes of Death may have been Because of the Patients Chronic – And Lethal – Ailments. Statisticians, Epidemiologists and Media “Experts” Worth Their Salt Should be Multiplying 0.06 (6%) X the Supposed 500,000 Covid-19 Deaths to Get a More Accurate Count of American Deaths)
(0.06 X 500,000 = 30,000, which approximates the number of deaths expected for the average annual pandemic influenza and influenza like illnesses (ILI), which never resulted in economic lockdowns, school cancellations, mandated mask-wearing, “distance learning” or promotion of the irrational – and psychologically-traumatizing – “germophobia”.)
“For (a miniscule) 6% of the deaths, Covid-19 was the only cause (of death) mentioned (on the death certificates).”
“For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, there were (an average of) 2.6 additional conditions (‘co-morbidities’) or causes per death.”
By Jon Rappoport – February 23, 2021 (986 words)
“The PCR test is useless and deceptive. It provides de facto dictators the opportunity to cite ‘new case levels’ and lock down populations, creating economic and human devastation.” – Jon Rappaport
Here is another article in my series exposing the COVID PCR testing fraud . For purposes of discussion, I’m assuming the virus is real, and the case and death numbers are meaningful. Within that official world, the internal contradictions and lies are huge.
The lockdowns are based on high levels of COVID cases.
“We have so many new cases, we have to lock down.”
This claim is based on the (deeply flawed) PCR test.
The more tests you do, the more positive results come up. A positive result is taken to mean: the person is infected with the virus (a false assumption).
But overwhelmingly, these so-called “infected” people have no symptoms. They are healthy. Nevertheless, each one is called a “COVID case.” This is absurd. 
A case should mean the person has clinical symptoms; he is sick.
These people aren’t sick, and there is no indication they will get sick.
So…expand testing, test millions of people, obtain results claiming “infection,” call all these healthy people “cases,” and order lock downs. 
This is a straight-out con. The real goal is lockdowns and economic devastation.
Now let’s go to published official literature and see what it reveals. Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.
From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel”
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.
From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”
“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”
Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.
The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has not yet been validated.”
Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.
From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19 RT-PCR test EUA Summary – December 9, 2020; Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Summary Covid-19 RT-PCR Test (Laboratory Corporation of America)” [Pg 2]
“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”
Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, “may not be the definite cause of disease.”
We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.
From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit”:
“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.
“Specificity: non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”
Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.
“Application: Qualitative” (ie, Not Quantitative)
Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. That’s another indication that the test is useless for determining whether the patient is ill—since millions and millions of virus must be present, in order to produce illness.
“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis and are only for the reference of clinicians.”
Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.
Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.
CONCLUSION: The PCR Test Is Useless and Deceptive.
It provides de facto dictators the opportunity to cite “new case levels” and lock down populations, creating economic and human devastation.
RESIST, REBEL, PROTEST, OPEN UP THE ECONOMY ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN.
And get this information out there, far and wide.
[4a] CDC-006-00019, Revision: 06, CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases, Effective: 12/01/2020; see: https://web.archive.org/web/20210102171026/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
[4b] CDC-006-00019, Revision: 05, CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases, Effective: 07/13/2020; see: https://web.archive.org/web/20200715004004/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
3] PCR Tests are “Useless” and are Based on “Flawed Science”
By Michael Haynes – December 10, 2020 (1291 words)
“…if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold (Ct) of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.” – Swiss Policy Research
The original scientific paper establishing RT-PCR tests as the way to identify COVID-19 in individuals, thus fueling the lockdowns across the globe, has been thoroughly debunked by scientists, who call the tests “useless” and “completely unsuitable” to find COVID-19, given they were developed without even having access to the virus itself.
The recently published report examined the original Corman-Drosten paper, in which Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR/PCR) tests were proposed as a validated means to detect COVID-19. The protocol proposed is used in around 70% of tests globally and by over one hundred governments. These tests promptly became the motivating factor behind the international phenomenon of nation-wide lockdowns, as cases of the virus were reported to rise.
But a group of 22 independent scientists, termed the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS), have studied and reviewed the Corman-Drosten (CD) paper, finding “numerous technical and scientific errors,” noting that neither the “test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication.” They dubbed the CD paper as “flawed science” and called its authors “intellectually dishonest.”
The group presents “ten fatal problems” with the Corman-Drosten paper, and concludes that there is no other choice “but to retract the publication.” Each of the problems is described as being sufficient on its own to render the PCR test “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” The ICSLS report highlights the “worldwide misdiagnosis of infections” stemming from the CD protocols, resulting in “stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods.”
Lead author of the ICSLS report is Dr. Pieter Borger, an expert on the molecular biology of gene expression, and among the co-authors is Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President of vaccine company Pfizer.
Dr. Paul Sacré offers a brief explanation of how the PCR test works, as an aid to understand the ICSLS’s criticisms of the CD paper. The nasal or throat swab is “processed to isolate genetic material,” then primers — “engineered genetic material” — are added and bound to the viral genetic material, which begins “amplification.” During amplification, fluorescent markers “bound to the copies during PCR” are released, and if enough of these are detected, the test is termed positive.
Breakdown of Scientific Problems
The first “major” issue identified in the ICSLS review is that the CD paper and the trial PCR tests were written and conducted “without having virus material available,” in the words of the CD paper itself. Instead, the PCR test method was based on “silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China.” The CD paper’s aims of development and deployment of a test “are not achievable without having any actual virus material available,” according to the ICSLS.
On the day the CD paper was submitted to medical journal Eurosurveillance, Google data records only 6 deaths from the virus. This leads the ICSLS to question why the CD report predicted “a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?”
Many errors are presented by the ICSLS. The concentration of primers used in the development of the PCR tests are “far too high” for “optimal specific amplifications of target genes.” The variations of primer pairs used in the CD paper mean, “The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related.” Thus, various laboratories could assume they have detected a positive COVID case, using a formula that does not actually detect COVID.
In order for a PCR test to be reliable, “amplification from 3 different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required.” Yet the ICSLS found in the CD paper that “in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.”
Continuing, the ICSLS notes that the proposed PCR test contains “severe design errors,” and since the test is unable to distinguish between “the whole virus and viral fragments” it “cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.” A positive test, as mentioned in the CD paper, cannot determine if one is infected with the virus, but “merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules.”
The review then deals with the amplification cycles of the tests. The CD paper does not even define what a positive or negative test result is but does suggest that “45 PCR cycles” are to be performed. While a PCR test can have up to 60 cycles of amplification, both Dr. Sacré and the ICSLS point out that PCR test data from a cycle value of 35 or more is “completely unreliable.” “Only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with [cycle] values of 35,” the group adds, as even above 30 cycles there is “a grey area”, where a positive result cannot be trusted.
After the amplification process is complete, “biomolecular validation” is “essential” to determine the presence of COVID-19, since “amplified PCR products can be anything.” But the CD paper’s protocol does not do so, and the ICSLS consequently calls any PCR test developed on such a basis “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
The proposed PCR tests also ignore the “essential scientific gold standard” which is to have a positive control and a negative control, by which to identify COVID-19 from other coronaviruses. Furthermore, the CD paper itself notes the gene used in the tests is not specific to COVID-19, and thus detects “a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.”
Based on all these errors, and even drawn from text in the CD paper itself, the ICSLS warns that it is “inevitable” that “the PCR test described in the Corman-Drosten paper generates false positives.” This is echoed by Dr. Sacré, who wrote that the chief limitation of PCR tests is the “extreme sensitivity (false positive) if a suitable threshold of positivity (Ct) is not chosen.”
No Peer Review, But Conflict of Interest Authorship
The Corman-Drosten paper appears to have received no peer review. It was received to Eurosurveillance on January 21, 2020, accepted for publication the next day, and posted online on January 23. In fact, ICSLS reports that a version of the CD paper was published on the WHO website on January 13, 2020. Evidence thus suggests no peer review has occurred, and the ICSLS writes, “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.”
The group contacted Eurosurveillance for a copy of a peer review but was eventually told that “disclosure would undermine the purpose of scientific investigations.”
Two authors of the CD paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, were found to be part of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, prompting the ICSLS to say that “there is a severe conflict of interest which strengthens suspicions that the paper was not peer-reviewed.” Such an action is seen as “compromising scientific integrity.”
In addition to that, ICSLS found “severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors,” with two of the authors being the CEO and scientific advisor at PCR test producing company TIB-Molbiol.
The post The Death Knell for Relying on the PCR Test for Covid Statistics appeared first on LewRockwell.