UPDATE 12. October 2020: Issues with the RT-PCR Coronavirus Test (updated Version 3)

UPDATE 26. August 2020: REUPLOAD: CORONAVIRUS PCR TEST PRIMER SEQUENCE FOUND IN ALL HUMAN DNA

UPDATE 21. August 2020: One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!

UPDATE 20 July 2020: How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?

UPDATE 01. Juli 2020: Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose

UPDATE 27. June 2020: COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically MeaninglessThough the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose

UPDATE 23. April 2020: Issues with the RT-PCR Coronavirus Test

ICYMI: Manufactured Pandemic: Testing People for Any Strain of a Coronavirus, Not Specifically for COVID-19

BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

By VF, Steve Kelly, Amanda Vollmer - 05. April 2020

This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. Our research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has lead to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!

The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in the WHO coronavirus PCR testing protocol document. The primer sequences are getting amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a “positive” test result. It just so happens this exact same18-character sequence, verbatim, is also found on Homo sapiens chromosome 8! As far as we can tell, this means that the WHO test kits should find a positive result in all humans.

WHO Primer

We really cannot overstate the significance of this finding.

At minimum, it should have a notable impact on test results.

WHO Primer 2

Homo sapiens chromosome 8, GRCh38.p12 Primary Assembly
Sequence ID: NC_000008.11 Length: 145138636
Range 1: 63648346 to 63648363 is “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT”

Update: After some effort, We have finally discovered a way to display proof (beyond the screenshots) that human chromosome 8 has this exact same 18-character sequence.

Please open this link in a new window: 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/NC_000008.11?report=genbank&log$=nuclalign&from=63648346&to=63648363

The specific sequence is shown at the bottom of the page.

In addition specialists say that any amplification over 35 brings insignificant results.

The Drosten / WHO test is set for an amplification of 45 !

Conclusion: Stop these fake Corona PCR tests!

===

Faktcheckers got it wrong

Though the CoronaVirusFacts/DatosCoronaVirus Alliance, a coalition of more than 100 self-imposing so-called fact-checkers who are fighting 'misinformation' related to the COVID-19 pandemic and are paid by BigPharma to produce counter-narratives (Learn more about the alliance here), thise like Eric Ferkenhoff only came up with some lame lines to the findings above and published on 29. August 2020: Fact Check: WHO Tests For Coronavirus Do NOT Automatically Deliver False Positive Every Time

But they revealed the defence strategy of the W.H.O: BLAME THE MANY AND DISGUISE:

WHO's Oliel said there is no single "WHO Coronavirus PCR Test":

Starting by mid-January, different protocol (with different primers/probes designs) were released and all of them were available for the countries to implement. So far, there are more than 100 commercial options, based on several different protocols and combination of primers and probes.

The Wrd Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations (UN) is also telling lies here. It was the "Drosten"-Test that came out first and then was immediately recommended by the WHO - that is fact. Surely others followed as copycats, but without this first unholy alliance of Tedros and Drosten there would not have been a push for this test and governments couldn't have followed blindly those fake findings and dumped their societies into the oppression set up by their medical- martial laws.

===

CORONAVIRUS PCR TEST PRIMER SEQUENCE FOUND IN ALL HUMAN DNA

First re-published on BITCHUTE on August 26th, 2020. Originals on Youtube and even BRANDNEWTUBE were censored.

channel image

Rambaldi's Eye

Rambaldi's Eye

Medical researcher Amanda Vollmer discusses an article that was published in Apr 2020, documenting the evidence that the CoViD-19 PCR Test protocols identify a DNA base-pair sequence as nCoV, when that sequence is an EXACT MATCH to human 'Chromosome 8'.... that exists naturally in the human genome.

Originally published: 6 Apr 2020
Sources: pieceofmindful.com / ecoterra.net
JOIN Rambaldi's Eye on Telegram: https://t.me/RambaldisEye

Original videos, from Del Bigtree's The Highwire (before YouTube deleted his channel) and from YumNaturals Emporium: https://youtu.be/5y1KzCKrZ3A Article: BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

===

Issues with the RT-PCR Coronavirus Test

By David Crowe
First issued: April 23, 2020
Version 3 (October 12, 2020)

This is an analysis of the so-called coronavirus test, based on RT-PCR technology. It is based significantly on my recent reading of a 2017 article on potential problems with RT-PCR by Professor Stephen Bustin, a world expert, a podcast that I recently conducted with him and the MIQE guidelines for operating and reporting on RT-PCR data. This article does not question whether the RNA used in the test is viral or endogenous. If the RNA is not viral, then clearly the RT-PCR coronavirus test is of no value. This web page does not contain references, for those you should consult the fully referenced Coronavirus Panic Critique.

The PCR Cycle Number

The PCR algorithm is cyclical. At each cycle it generates approximately double the amount of DNA (which, in RT-PCR, corresponding to the RNA that the process started with). When used as a test you don’t know the amount of starting material, but the amount of DNA at the end of each cycle will be shown indirectly by fluorescent molecules that are attached to the probes. The amount of light produced after every step will then approximately double, and when it reaches a certain intensity the process is halted and the sample is declared positive (implying infected). If, after a certain number of cycles, there is still not sufficient DNA, then the sample is declared negative (implying not infected). This cycle number (Ct) used to separate positive from negative is arbitrary, and is not the same for every organization doing testing. For example, there is a paper published that reported using 36 as the cutoff for positive, 37-39 as indeterminate, requiring more testing, and above 39 as negative. Another paper used 37 as the cutoff, with no intermediate zone. In a list of test kits approved by the US FDA one manufacturer each recommended 30 cycles, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39. 40 cycles was most popular, chosen by 12 manufacturers, and one each recommended 43 and 45.

Meaning of the Ct

Implicit in using a Ct number is the assumption that approximately the same amount of original RNA (within a multiple of two) will produce the same Ct number. However, there are many possibilities for error in RT-PCR. There are inefficiencies in extracting the RNA, even larger inefficiencies in converting the RNA to complementary DNA (Bustin noted that efficiency is rarely over 50% and can easily vary by a factor of 10), and inefficiencies in the PCR process itself. Bustin, in the podcast, described reliance on an arbitrary Ct number as “absolute nonsense, it makes no sense whatsoever”. It certainly cannot be assumed that the same Ct number on tests done at different laboratories indicates the same original quantity of RNA.

Limits on Cycles

Professor Bustin stated that cycling more than 35 times was unwise, but it appears that nobody is limiting cycles to 35 or less (the MIQE guidelines recommend less than 40). Cycling too much could result in false positives as background fluorescence builds up in the PCR reaction.

Ct and Number of Positive Tests

The Ct cycle number will significantly influence the number of positive tests. If the Ct was changed from 37 to 35 there would be fewer positive tests, and if changed to 39 there would more positive tests. Even if the Ct number was standardized, it would still have different meaning depending on the specific machines, chemicals and procedures used by different labs, and even within the same lab changes could still be found between different runs of samples. Without simultaneously amplifying a known quantity of ‘spiked’ RNA, it cannot be assumed that with consistent Ct numbers can be used to consistently provide a boundary between positive and negative.

Is the Amount Meaningful?

If the process is efficient, a large number of cycles could detect as little as three molecules of RNA. If there are people who had such a small amount of virus in their body, causing no health problems, they would still test positive.

Is the Virus Functional?

If there are only parts of viruses present, or defective virus particles, that are not infectious, they would still produce positive tests. The tests do not prove that pathogenic, replicable virus is present.

Can RT-PCR Distinguish Infected from Uninfected

No.

How RT-PCR Works in More Detail

The following steps are used to test for particular RNA:

  1. RNA must be extracted from a sample. This must be done carefully to ensure that DNA is eliminated, and that chemicals that might inhibit further steps are not included. It is impossible to ensure absolute purity of the RNA.
  2. RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA). This uses the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase and is never terribly efficient (50%). The amount of DNA produced can vary significantly, depending on numerous factors, perhaps by a factor of 10 (it used to be a factor of 100).
  3. In the PCR part of the process, cDNA is present with primers and a probe (and possibly some stray DNA from the sample). The primers delimit the beginning and the ending of the cDNA that is intended to be duplicated. The probe helps ensure that RNA is only duplicated if it matches the primers (which are quite short) and the probe. At each cycle of this process (PCR proper) the amount of DNA is approximately doubled. Fluorescent markers are attached to the probe so that, at each step, the amount of light can be used to estimate how much DNA has been generated.
  4. Optionally, the resulting DNA can be sequenced to determine exactly what the bases (‘string of four different DNA beads’) are.

Errors and inefficiencies can occur at every step. It is not possible to actually estimate quantities unless the reaction is ‘spiked’ with a known amount of a different RNA, which is also duplicated. Then the PCR cycle number can be roughly correlated with the original quantity of material.

Is There Proof There Are Problems, Or Is This Just a Hypothesis?

There are now several papers that illustrate essentially impossible testing results. A paper from China reported on consecutive testing results, defined as either Negative (N), Positive (P) or Dubious (D, presumably intermediate). Results for 29 people with inexplicable results out of about 600 patients were: 1 DDPDD 2 NNPN 3 NNNPN 4 DNPN 5 NNDP 6 NDP 7 DNP 8 NDDPN 9 NNNDPN 10 NNPD 11 DNP 12 NNNP 13 PPNDPN 14 PNPPP 15 DPNPNN 16 PNNP 17 NPNPN 18 PNP 19 NPNP 20 PNPN 21 PNP 22 PNP 23 PNP 24 PNDDP 25 PNPNN 26 PNPP 27 PNP 28 PNPN 29 PNP. A study from Singapore did tests almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from Positive to Negative back to Positive at least once, and up to four times in one patient. In China they have found that 5-14% of patients who have been cleared, with two consecutive negative tests, have later tested positive again, usually without new symptoms. In South Korea they recently reported 91 such patients. A 68 year old Chinese man went to hospital with symptoms, and tested positive. After his symptoms resolved and he tested negative twice he was released. But he tested positive again, and was readmitted, was released again, tested positive again, was readmitted, and then was released for a third time.

Conclusions

RT-PCR testing for the Coronavirus seems to be designed to produce as many positive tests as possible. The fear of missing a true positive is so great that those designing the specific testing methodology based on RT-PCR completely ignore the risk of false positives. False positives make the epidemic appear larger, and justify the complete shutdown of the economy, locking people in their own homes, and destroying just about everything in the lives of people that brings them joy, such as playing ball in the park, going for coffee with a friend, going to the theater or a sports event, going swimming, going to the county fair.

© Copyright October 12, 2020. David Crowe

===

One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!

By nukepro.net - 21. August 2020

Thank you for such an amazing and clever detective work. I have done some PCR amplification work myself whilst working as a research assistant years ago. 
This is a very important find. However, I had already told friends that I suspected that the test would be intentionally chosen to be very very non-specific so as to make sure that all people who are tested come out as having “Covid-19”  whether healthy or not and at different times to make sure it does not arise much suspicion. In fact, the test can not diagnose anything useful at all. 
I made a joke to some friends that getting a positive PCR test result for Covid-19 and for any other potential future non-ethical, money-making, scam tests (irrespective of the particular technique used) that might be used to deceive, push vaccination and accelerate the mass and covert culling/ genocide of the world population would be similar to testing all humans on Planet Earth for the presence of epithelial skin cells which just indicates that we are indeed humans. 

According to the elite, there is just too many of us “useless eaters” that need to be eliminated under the pretext of an imaginary killer virus without any humanitarian considerations because we are slaves with no unalienable rights to live in peace and harmony and to speak freely until we naturally expire due to natural causes. Yes an outrageous claim but all roads lead to Rome.

My points:

1. The size of the amplified DNA segment is very small; about 100 bp long. Our bodies are full of DNA and RNA which are constantly floating about intracellularly as well as extracellularly. The presence of an alleged very short DNA segment does not prove the existence of an organism. 

We constantly inhale air, ingest foods and drink water and beverages and naturally expose our bodies to nano-sized chemicals, massive amounts of foreign DNA and RNA, bacteria, fungi and parasites which the body handles efficiently and effectively and in the most magical, powerful and beautiful ways rendering them harmless. Some screws you might find on land whilst hiking does not necessarily indicate that the screws belonged to an aeroplane or that those belonged to a crashed aircraft.

2. The smaller the amplicon( amplified product) the higher the chance that the product could be found on a variety of DNA sequences from a variety of organisms; including humans. That is why PCR is not meant for clinical diagnosis. 

PS. Dr Kerry Mullis, PCR inventor’s statement.

3. What Kill Gates of Hell and Fouchi and the rest of the cabal are doing is to say most, if not all humanity are burdened with these funny, unnatural DNA sequences when in fact, the DNA sequences are entirely natural; in order to push the narrative of vaccines as the only way out of the potential viral death and severe disease, fabricated economic global catastrophe and into a planned phase of dystopian living with an ever decreasing list of human rights and freedoms. 

The propaganda is there to get noticed. According to them, our specific (antibodies and T-cell responses) and our innate ( macrophages, neutrophils, etc.) immunities are unable to deal with their phoney creation and that their hypothetical and made up herd immunity would not work, nor would holistic or other cheap, existing, effective and safe allopathic treatments ( Vitamin C, Zinc, HCQ, Azithromycin, Vitamin D, Quercetin, etc.), transfusion with antibodies from those who supposedly caught it and recovered, nor does any other prophylactic measure or treatment that might prevent the corporates, Bill Gates Foundation, vaccine manufacturers and the U.N./W.H.O from both making billions/trillions of dollars and culling most of the population on earth. 

All roads lead to Rome. All prevention and treatment modalities have been and will be systematically ignored, ridiculed, censored, rejected and outlawed; all in favor of multiple, list of 666 Vaccines designed to attack our bodies in different ways.

4. The PCR technique is the ideal way to cheat and fabricate a delusion. The length of your DNA primers ( Forward and reverse primers, always a pair) could be shortened or lengthened thus influencing specificity of annealing( binding to target DNA molecules).

5. The temperature on the PCR thermal cycling machine could be lowered or increased thus affecting whether the primers bind specifically or non-specifically to any floating DNA!

6. Many primer pairs are not required to be a perfect match to target DNA. Some have only a 50% homology. Thus, if you supposedly make a list of all primers that have been used to detect the alleged “Covid-19” and look at gene data sequences, you might find that most, if not all primer sequences that target DNA sequences have at least 50% homology with human DNA sequences. 

YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET A PERFECT SEQUENCE COMPLEMENTARITY/ MATCH BETWEEN YOUR DESIGNED PRIMERS AND THE UNKNOWN DNA SEGMENT IN ORDER TO AMPLIFY THE TARGET DNA SOURCE. 

Thus the amplified product might easily be human DNA masked as viral DNA! 

They are masking us but also placing a mask on the target of the PCR reaction and that is human DNA so we are the targets that are identified and then destroyed by multiple generations of a cocktail of vaccines under the alleged ardent desire to kill an imaginary viral enemy. They think of us as their enemy. 

I reckon that, if you find 50% similarity/match between designed primers and human DNA sequences in your human genome data bank search then that could imply that the DNA that is targeted and amplified as a source for laboratory diagnosis of Covid-19 is actually Human DNA and that the published primers are binding to human DNA sequences. This could potentially debunk the gigantic fraud.   

7. The concentration of the amplified DNA product depends on the particular type and concentration of the genetically modified DNA polymerase enzyme as well as concentrations of magnesium, concentration of DNTPs, concentration of original DNA sample, buffer concentration and constituents, denaturation temperature, annealing temperature as well as extension temperatures. All these could be manipulated to get a desired outcome.
          
8. The number of cycles could be altered too and this could easily affect how much amplified product is made and thus whether the sample would be easily detectable using fluorescence light or not. Increase the number of cycles and a very very small, unimportant, harmless, irrelevant piece of floating, junk DNA could be amplified billions of times and suddenly become visible, “relevant”  and irreverant( i.e. become prone to a massive scam) and thus that clinical sample could thus be tagged as being positive for Covid-19. Suddenly, a very healthy person could be tagged, harassed, intimidated and manipulated to take their poisonous toxins that are guaranteed to reduce longevity and healthspan. 

9. The size of the PCR product in RT-PCR is between 75-150 bp. This is a very small size and finding a needle in the haystack does not mean that that sequence belongs to a killer virus. 

A total and utter scam that we all need to know about and respond to appropriately by informing others. 

===

How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?

By Professor Carl Heneghan (*) - 20. July 2020

Test, test, test said the WHO. And globally, that’s what everyone did: nearly 300 million tests have been done to detect more than 14 million cases of Sars-CoV-2 so far. The thinking goes: turn up, have your test, and if positive, you must have the disease. But that’s far from the truth. When virus levels in the population are very low, the chances of a test accurately detecting Covid-19 are less than 50 per cent – for reasons that are not very widely understood.

There are two issues about tests to get your head around. The first is the sensitivity of the test: the proportion of people who test positive, out of the population who have the virus. The second measure, specificity, is about the proportion of people who test negative, out of the population who should have tested negative. Finding out the actual values for these two measures is tricky. The Office for National Statistics admits they do not ‘know the true sensitivity and specificity of the test because Covid-19 is a new virus’.

Estimates suggest that roughly 80 per cent of infected people will have a positive test (the sensitivity). Based on the latest data, specificity may be as high as 99.9 per cent for those who test negative. I think this is a bit high, but let’s run with it for now.

To unravel the confusion, let’s think about what happens when the virus level is low, which it is in Britain at the moment. The latest ONS estimate is that about 0.04 per cent, or one in 2,300 people, had the virus at any point between 6 and 12 July. But for ease of calculation let’s imagine the real infection level is higher: that 1 in 1,000 of us have the virus. Or 0.1 per cent.

And let’s imagine that, in this scenario, 10,000 random people go for a Covid-19 test. With the infection level at 0.1 per cent, just ten people will have Sars-CoV-2 and 9,990 will not. Of the ten who turn up with an infection, 80 per cent will test positive, meaning eight people will be correctly identified while two will walk away with a false negative.

And of the 9,990 not infected, all but ten will be correctly diagnosed as negative: hence the success rate of 99.9 per cent (the specificity). But ten will be told they have Covid-19, when in fact they don’t. That leaves us with 18 positive tests: eight from people who genuinely had the virus and ten who did not. So only eight out of 18 (44 per cent) of the infections are real. That’s where the chance of accurately detecting the disease being less than 50 per cent comes from.

But the above is not so hypothetical, given that the latest figures show the virus at lower levels than the scenario considered above, with tens of thousands of tests carried out every day. The academic study accompanying the ONS Infection Survey from 26 April to 28 June makes this point: ‘Even in a purely hypothetical situation that the virus is not circulating, a test specificity of 99.9 per cent would be associated with an expected number of positive tests that is approximately equal to what we observed over the entire study period.’

Problems with test accuracy are likely to be more of an issue globally. The current US Centers for Disease Control test kits can generate up to 30 per cent false positives even in their best laboratories. Highly accurate tests can prove costly – more than £100 per test. So, we shouldn’t be surprised that in poorer countries, highly questionable cheaper alternative tests that cost less than £3 have been distributed and used. A recent BMJ review reported that the specificity of PCR tests could be as low as 95 per cent, as PCR test performance can be much worse in low prevalence community settings. This would mean that, in our hypothetical of 10,000 tests, we’d have 500 false positives amongst the eight genuine positives. So the hundreds of false-positive Covid-19 results would dwarf the genuine results – meaning an apparent surge in infections that was not followed by a corresponding surge in hospital admissions or deaths. 

At very low prevalence, the proportion of people with infection falls and the numbers falsely misdiagnosed increases. If Covid-19 completely disappears, then of our 10,000, no one will be infected. If you have followed the reasoning so far, you will have worked out this means that ten people would still be wrongly diagnosed as positive and the official data would show a national Covid-19 prevalence of 0.1 per cent. This is why understanding the accuracy of the tests in the population that they are applied to matters greatly: going on current testing practices and results, Covid-19 might never be shown to disappear.

______

* Professor Carl Heneghan is director of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

===

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

By BPA-Pathology - 01.July 2020

Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose

From Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter:

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”

But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.

UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRA

At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.

Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:

Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.

But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.

This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.

As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”

But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.

Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].

And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.

In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.

That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd“I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”

NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGIN

Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.

As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).

Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

===

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically MeaninglessThough the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose

By Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter - 27. June 2020

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”

But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.

UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRA

At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.

Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:

Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.

But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.

This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.

As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”

But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.

Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].

And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.

In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.

That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd“I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”

NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGIN

Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.

As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).

We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:

Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.

That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).

Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.

We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”[3]

And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:

I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]

This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2.

In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.

In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.

The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.

One example is a study published in Nature on May 7. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.

For instance, the alleged “infected” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. And the slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.

Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.

Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) — could answer the following question I have sent them:

If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?

Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “stress” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable — an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983.

It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.

But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.

Regarding our question “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles.

And although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:

RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),”

Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral.

Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn’t even go through a proper peer review process, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.

IRRATIONAL TEST RESULTS

It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.

For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.

A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virologyshowed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.

A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.

Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:

It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”

In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “positive” people tested.

This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).

The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “positive” (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “negative” (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).

With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.

In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblattpublished an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios.

The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.

But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “a shockingly low” PPV.

In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine,” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically.

In a second scenario of the journal’s article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the “positive” tests are false “positives.”

That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered “positive” worldwide — supposing that the true “positives” really have a viral infection — we would get almost 2 million false “positives.”

All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”

And:

This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

And the FDA admits that:

positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics[5].

To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read:

These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection”

And:

For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE TESTS CAN MEASURE THE “VIRAL LOAD”?

There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes.

Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “qualitative” tests, contrary to the fact that the “q” in “qPCR” stands for “quantitative.” And if these tests are not “quantitative” tests, they don’t show how many viral particles are in the body.

That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.

That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called “viral load,” i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. “But this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal,” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out.

This is not only because the term “viral load” is deception. If you put the question “what is viral load?” at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They’re surprised to learn it’s actually RNA molecules.

Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is “burdened” with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out (which has not yet happened):

You take, let’s say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in. The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found. Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle?

With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. — the so-called “Drosten PCR test” — is a quantitative test.

But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “yes”. Instead, the Charité wrote:

If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases these are […] limited to qualitative detection.”

Furthermore, the “Drosten PCR test” uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay, while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay.

According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses, while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled “SARS-CoV-2”.

Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “positive” even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!gives a “positive” result.

This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific.

That change of algorithm increased the “case” numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche, TIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm.

HIGH CQ VALUES MAKE THE TEST RESULTS EVEN MORE MEANINGLESS

Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “cycle quantification” (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the “Drosten PCR test”, even have a Cq of 45.

The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.

“Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” as it says in the MIQE guidelines.

MIQE stands for “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments”, a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.

The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, agreed, when he stated:

If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCRwhich has been called “the bible of qPCR.”

In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false “positive” results).”

And, according to him, a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.

If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.

Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR.”

But this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper.

Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.

For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10 (see above interview).

Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test’s reliable informative value.

So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests—even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?

Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding.

Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010.

And experts criticize “that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown“ since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is obviously no better off.

Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.

And a “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.”

Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.

NOTES:-

[1] Sensitivity is defined as the proportion of patients with disease in whom the test is positive; and specificity is defined as the proportion of patients without disease in whom the test is negative.

[2] E-mail from Prof. Thomas Löscher from March 6, 2020

[3] Martin Enserink. Virology. Old guard urges virologists to go back to basics, Science, July 6, 2001, p. 24

[4] E-mail from Charles Calisher from May 10, 2020

[5] Creative Diagnostics, SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit

Authors:

Torsten Engelbrecht is an award-winning journalist and author from Hamburg, Germany. In 2006 he co-authored Virus-Mania with Dr Klaus Koehnlein, and in 2009 he won the German Alternate Media Award. He has also written for Rubikon, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Financial Times Deutschland and many others.
Konstantin Demeter is a freelance photographer and an independent researcher. Together with the journalist Torsten Engelbrecht he has published articles on the “COVID-19” crisis in the online magazine Rubikon, as well as contributions on the monetary system, geopolitics, and the media in Swiss Italian newspapers.

===

Manufactured Pandemic: Testing People for Any Strain of a Coronavirus, Not Specifically for COVID-19

By Julian Rose - 27. March 2020 - republihed by Global Research, October 11, 2020

The following is from a medical forum. The writer, who is a widely respected professional scientist in the US, prefers to stay anonymous, because presenting any narrative different than the official one can cause you a lot of stress in the toxic environment caused by the scam which surrounds COVID-19 these days. – Julian Rose

***

I work in the healthcare field. Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus. There are no reliable agencies or media outlets for reporting numbers of actual COVID-19 virus cases. This needs to be addressed first and foremost. Every action and reaction to COVID-19 is based on totally flawed data and we simply can not make accurate assessments.

This is why you’re hearing that most people with COVID-19 are showing nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. That’s because most Coronavirus strains are nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. The few actual novel Coronavirus cases do have some worse respiratory responses, but still have a very promising recovery rate, especially for those without prior issues.

The ‘gold standard’ in testing for COVID-19 is laboratory isolated/purified coronavirus particles free from any contaminants and particles that look like viruses but are not, that have been proven to be the cause of the syndrome known as COVID-19 and obtained by using proper viral isolation methods and controls (not the PCR that is currently being used or Serology /antibody tests which do not detect virus as such). PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome.

The problem is the test is known not to work.

It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analyzed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.

Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.

The Mickey Mouse test kits being sent out to hospitals, at best, tell analysts you have some viral DNA in your cells. Which most of us do, most of the time. It may tell you the viral sequence is related to a specific type of virus – say the huge family of coronavirus. But that’s all. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.

And that’s not even getting into the other issue – viral load.

If you remember the PCR works by amplifying minute amounts of DNA. It therefore is useless at telling you how much virus you may have. And that’s the only question that really matters when it comes to diagnosing illness. Everyone will have a few virus kicking round in their system at any time, and most will not cause illness because their quantities are too small. For a virus to sicken you you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if it is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you.

If you feel sick and get a PCR test any random virus DNA might be identified even if they aren’t at all involved in your sickness which leads to false diagnosis.

And coronavirus are incredibly common. A large percentage of the world human population will have covi DNA in them in small quantities even if they are perfectly well or sick with some other pathogen.

Do you see where this is going yet? If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus.

They are incredibly common and there’s tons of them. A very high percentage of people who have become sick by other means (flu, bacterial pneumonia, anything) will have a positive

PCR test for covi even if you’re doing them properly and ruling out contamination, simply because covis are so common.

There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time.

All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a coronavirus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease.

Since you already selected the sickest flu cases a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die.

You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on.

Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist.

Now just run the same scam in other countries. Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically.

Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen but just regular sick people, you are mislabeling your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic.

But you can stop people pointing this out in several ways.

1. You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead.

2. You can tell people that ‘minimizing’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers.

3. You can talk crap about made up numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience.

4. You can start testing well people (who, of course, will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptom-less cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen.

Take these 4 simple steps and you can have your own entirely manufactured pandemic up and running in weeks.

They can not “confirm” something for which there is no accurate test.

 

Author:

Copyright © Julian Rose, 2020

* Note to readers: Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet fora etc.

 

===

Homo sapiens chromosome 8, GRCh38.p13 Primary Assembly

NCBI Reference Sequence: NC_000008.11

 "Customize view" panel to change the display and show all, including Gene, RNA, and CDS features .

LOCUS       NC_000008                 18 bp    DNA     linear   CON 17-AUG-2020
DEFINITION  Homo sapiens chromosome 8, GRCh38.p13 Primary Assembly.
ACCESSION   NC_000008 REGION: 63648346..63648363
VERSION     NC_000008.11
DBLINK      BioProject: PRJNA168
            Assembly: GCF_000001405.39
KEYWORDS    RefSeq.
SOURCE      Homo sapiens (human)
  ORGANISM  Homo sapiens
            Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi;
            Mammalia; Eutheria; Euarchontoglires; Primates; Haplorrhini;
            Catarrhini; Hominidae; Homo.
REFERENCE   1  (bases 1 to 18)
  AUTHORS   Nusbaum,C., Mikkelsen,T.S., Zody,M.C., Asakawa,S., Taudien,S.,
            Garber,M., Kodira,C.D., Schueler,M.G., Shimizu,A., Whittaker,C.A.,
            Chang,J.L., Cuomo,C.A., Dewar,K., FitzGerald,M.G., Yang,X.,
            Allen,N.R., Anderson,S., Asakawa,T., Blechschmidt,K., Bloom,T.,
            Borowsky,M.L., Butler,J., Cook,A., Corum,B., DeArellano,K.,
            DeCaprio,D., Dooley,K.T., Dorris,L. III, Engels,R., Glockner,G.,
            Hafez,N., Hagopian,D.S., Hall,J.L., Ishikawa,S.K., Jaffe,D.B.,
            Kamat,A., Kudoh,J., Lehmann,R., Lokitsang,T., Macdonald,P.,
            Major,J.E., Matthews,C.D., Mauceli,E., Menzel,U., Mihalev,A.H.,
            Minoshima,S., Murayama,Y., Naylor,J.W., Nicol,R., Nguyen,C.,
            O'Leary,S.B., O'Neill,K., Parker,S.C., Polley,A., Raymond,C.K.,
            Reichwald,K., Rodriguez,J., Sasaki,T., Schilhabel,M., Siddiqui,R.,
            Smith,C.L., Sneddon,T.P., Talamas,J.A., Tenzin,P., Topham,K.,
            Venkataraman,V., Wen,G., Yamazaki,S., Young,S.K., Zeng,Q.,
            Zimmer,A.R., Rosenthal,A., Birren,B.W., Platzer,M., Shimizu,N. and
            Lander,E.S.
  TITLE     DNA sequence and analysis of human chromosome 8
  JOURNAL   Nature 439 (7074), 331-335 (2006)
   PUBMED   16421571
REFERENCE   2  (bases 1 to 18)
  CONSRTM   International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium
  TITLE     Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome
  JOURNAL   Nature 431 (7011), 931-945 (2004)
   PUBMED   15496913
REFERENCE   3  (bases 1 to 18)
  AUTHORS   Lander,E.S., Linton,L.M., Birren,B., Nusbaum,C., Zody,M.C.,
            Baldwin,J., Devon,K., Dewar,K., Doyle,M., FitzHugh,W., Funke,R.,
            Gage,D., Harris,K., Heaford,A., Howland,J., Kann,L., Lehoczky,J.,
            LeVine,R., McEwan,P., McKernan,K., Meldrim,J., Mesirov,J.P.,
            Miranda,C., Morris,W., Naylor,J., Raymond,C., Rosetti,M.,
            Santos,R., Sheridan,A., Sougnez,C., Stange-Thomann,N.,
            Stojanovic,N., Subramanian,A., Wyman,D., Rogers,J., Sulston,J.,
            Ainscough,R., Beck,S., Bentley,D., Burton,J., Clee,C., Carter,N.,
            Coulson,A., Deadman,R., Deloukas,P., Dunham,A., Dunham,I.,
            Durbin,R., French,L., Grafham,D., Gregory,S., Hubbard,T.,
            Humphray,S., Hunt,A., Jones,M., Lloyd,C., McMurray,A., Matthews,L.,
            Mercer,S., Milne,S., Mullikin,J.C., Mungall,A., Plumb,R., Ross,M.,
            Shownkeen,R., Sims,S., Waterston,R.H., Wilson,R.K., Hillier,L.W.,
            McPherson,J.D., Marra,M.A., Mardis,E.R., Fulton,L.A.,
            Chinwalla,A.T., Pepin,K.H., Gish,W.R., Chissoe,S.L., Wendl,M.C.,
            Delehaunty,K.D., Miner,T.L., Delehaunty,A., Kramer,J.B., Cook,L.L.,
            Fulton,R.S., Johnson,D.L., Minx,P.J., Clifton,S.W., Hawkins,T.,
            Branscomb,E., Predki,P., Richardson,P., Wenning,S., Slezak,T.,
            Doggett,N., Cheng,J.F., Olsen,A., Lucas,S., Elkin,C.,
            Uberbacher,E., Frazier,M., Gibbs,R.A., Muzny,D.M., Scherer,S.E.,
            Bouck,J.B., Sodergren,E.J., Worley,K.C., Rives,C.M., Gorrell,J.H.,
            Metzker,M.L., Naylor,S.L., Kucherlapati,R.S., Nelson,D.L.,
            Weinstock,G.M., Sakaki,Y., Fujiyama,A., Hattori,M., Yada,T.,
            Toyoda,A., Itoh,T., Kawagoe,C., Watanabe,H., Totoki,Y., Taylor,T.,
            Weissenbach,J., Heilig,R., Saurin,W., Artiguenave,F., Brottier,P.,
            Bruls,T., Pelletier,E., Robert,C., Wincker,P., Smith,D.R.,
            Doucette-Stamm,L., Rubenfield,M., Weinstock,K., Lee,H.M.,
            Dubois,J., Rosenthal,A., Platzer,M., Nyakatura,G., Taudien,S.,
            Rump,A., Yang,H., Yu,J., Wang,J., Huang,G., Gu,J., Hood,L.,
            Rowen,L., Madan,A., Qin,S., Davis,R.W., Federspiel,N.A.,
            Abola,A.P., Proctor,M.J., Myers,R.M., Schmutz,J., Dickson,M.,
            Grimwood,J., Cox,D.R., Olson,M.V., Kaul,R., Raymond,C., Shimizu,N.,
            Kawasaki,K., Minoshima,S., Evans,G.A., Athanasiou,M., Schultz,R.,
            Roe,B.A., Chen,F., Pan,H., Ramser,J., Lehrach,H., Reinhardt,R.,
            McCombie,W.R., de la Bastide,M., Dedhia,N., Blocker,H.,
            Hornischer,K., Nordsiek,G., Agarwala,R., Aravind,L., Bailey,J.A.,
            Bateman,A., Batzoglou,S., Birney,E., Bork,P., Brown,D.G.,
            Burge,C.B., Cerutti,L., Chen,H.C., Church,D., Clamp,M.,
            Copley,R.R., Doerks,T., Eddy,S.R., Eichler,E.E., Furey,T.S.,
            Galagan,J., Gilbert,J.G., Harmon,C., Hayashizaki,Y., Haussler,D.,
            Hermjakob,H., Hokamp,K., Jang,W., Johnson,L.S., Jones,T.A.,
            Kasif,S., Kaspryzk,A., Kennedy,S., Kent,W.J., Kitts,P.,
            Koonin,E.V., Korf,I., Kulp,D., Lancet,D., Lowe,T.M., McLysaght,A.,
            Mikkelsen,T., Moran,J.V., Mulder,N., Pollara,V.J., Ponting,C.P.,
            Schuler,G., Schultz,J., Slater,G., Smit,A.F., Stupka,E.,
            Szustakowski,J., Thierry-Mieg,D., Thierry-Mieg,J., Wagner,L.,
            Wallis,J., Wheeler,R., Williams,A., Wolf,Y.I., Wolfe,K.H.,
            Yang,S.P., Yeh,R.F., Collins,F., Guyer,M.S., Peterson,J.,
            Felsenfeld,A., Wetterstrand,K.A., Patrinos,A., Morgan,M.J., de
            Jong,P., Catanese,J.J., Osoegawa,K., Shizuya,H., Choi,S. and
            Chen,Y.J.
  CONSRTM   International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium
  TITLE     Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome
  JOURNAL   Nature 409 (6822), 860-921 (2001)
   PUBMED   11237011
  REMARK    Erratum:[Nature 2001 Aug 2;412(6846):565]
COMMENT     REFSEQ INFORMATION: The reference sequence is identical to
            CM000670.2.
            On Feb 3, 2014 this sequence version replaced NC_000008.10.
            Assembly Name: GRCh38.p13 Primary Assembly
            The DNA sequence is composed of genomic sequence, primarily
            finished clones that were sequenced as part of the Human Genome
            Project. PCR products and WGS shotgun sequence have been added
            where necessary to fill gaps or correct errors. All such additions
            are manually curated by GRC staff. For more information see:
            https://genomereference.org.
            
            ##Genome-Annotation-Data-START##
            Annotation Provider         :: NCBI
            Annotation Status           :: Updated annotation
            Annotation Name             :: Homo sapiens Updated Annotation
                                           Release 109.20200815
            Annotation Version          :: 109.20200815
            Annotation Pipeline         :: NCBI eukaryotic genome annotation
                                           pipeline
            Annotation Software Version :: 8.5
            Annotation Method           :: Best-placed RefSeq; propagated
                                           RefSeq model
            Features Annotated          :: Gene; mRNA; CDS; ncRNA
            ##Genome-Annotation-Data-END##
FEATURES             Location/Qualifiers
     source          1..18
                     /organism="Homo sapiens"
                     /mol_type="genomic DNA"
                     /db_xref="taxon:9606"
                     /chromosome="8"
ORIGIN      
        1 ctccctttgt tgtgttgt
//