Misinformation about the PCR test revealed

Misinformation about the PCR test revealed

translated by Corona Investigative


Since false claims about the PCR test, what it is and what it can indicate, are persistently and without scientific understanding repeated in all media worldwide, this article will once again focus on the most important of these false claims and correct them. 

It is a waste of time to consume such media. One literally dumbs down and does not do oneself any favors, one can assume intent in view of the possibility of education.

Let 's have a look at the false claims.


Claim: The test used to test humans for the coronavirus has a great advantage, but at the same time it has a disadvantage: This PCR test is very sensitive. This means that it hardly leaves any infected person undetected if the sample is taken correctly.

Rebuttal: It is simply wrong to speak of infected people here! A positive PCR test cannot tell whether:

  1. Someone is infected,
  2. Someone is sick,
  3. Someone is contagious,
  4. Someone will get sick.

The test can only tell whether the person contains a very short sequence section in a swab, which itself cannot reveal anything about the presence of a pathogen that causes illness. Any PCR test is therefore useless.

Please read the following articles regarding the PCR test:

PCR: A DNA test becomes a instrument for manipulation read

The science fraud by Prof. Christian Drostenread

The PCR Test is not validated read


Claim: Although the infection is already well advanced in many people and they have hardly any viruses in their bodies and therefore cannot infect others, they have a positive test result.

Rebuttal: Again, attempts are made to subliminally carry false statements into the minds of people. The infection is not advanced, because a short sequence section, which is searched for in the PCR, cannot be a proof of infection. Not only that a PCR test cannot detect a whole virus, but always detects only very short sequence segments, which in their brevity can never be infectious themselves, so far there are no control experiments that prove that the nucleic acids used for the alignment of the genome of the virus are actually of viral nature and do not have tissue characteristics. By ignoring these important control experiments, although they are mandatory in many countries according to the standard of good scientific practice (1), any scientific work is to be considered unscientific!


Claim: An indication of the amount of virus a patient carries is given by the so-called Ct-value. It indicates how many rounds the PCR has to run before viral genetic material is detected. In a patient with a lot of viral material in the body, the test often works after 10 to 15 Ct rounds, say laboratory physicians. But if the PCR needs more than 30 rounds to detect viral material, a patient is most likely no longer contagious. According to the website of the Robert Koch Institute, the German epidemic authority, no virus can be replicated from samples from people with a Ct value of more than 30 in laboratory tests.

Rebuttal: The assertion that you can make a statement from the number of cycles (Ct-value) that you carry more "virus material" in yourself with a few cycles is wrong on the one hand and misleading on the other hand!

The number of cycles does not correlate in any way with the degree of the disease, this is clearly shown by several studies. To name one of them:

  • A remarkable series of graphics published in JAMA by some people from Singapore (2). These diagrams are in the additional information, which indicates that no one should read them (3).

These were 18 diagrams of 18 different people. And in this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they recorded the number of PCR cycles required to detect fluorescence. Or - if they measured fluorescence according to ... 37 cycles, they placed a dot at the bottom of the graph, which was interpreted as a negative result. So in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from "positive", which is normally read as "infected", to "negative", which is normally read as "not infected", and back again to "positively infected". So how do you interpret this? No matter what you do, even if you set the cut-off to a different number of cycles, it would be an arbitrary division up or down. But there is no guarantee that if you did that, you would not still have the same problem. So you cannot solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. Basically this means that the test cannot detect infection. Because if this PCR test could do this, how is it possible that within a hospital, with the best anti-infection measures in the world, patients are tested from "positive" to "negative" and so on from one day to the next?

The amount of RNA does not correlate with the disease!

Look again at the graph of the 18 patients. Theoretically, the PCR cycle number, where DNA is detectable, tells us the relative amount of RNA. No matter what initial amount was necessary to be considered "detected" in the 20th cycle, in the 21st cycle there would be a cyclical doubling of sensitivity, and in 30 cycles already 1000 times the amount. One could therefore expect that more alleged "virus" debris would be detected in test subjects who are ill and therefore a smaller number of propagation cycles would be necessary in their PCR test.

  • This is the reason why the authors have separated the first six diagrams from the remaining twelve. The first six were of people who were sick enough to need oxygen. However, it is clear from the graph that the six sicker people did not have significantly higher amounts of RNA.

The other claim: "But if the PCR needs more than 30 rounds to detect viral material, a patient is most likely not contagious at all" is also more than misleading. Thus, the statement implies that a PCR test can be used to determine whether someone is carrying the claimed "virus" and that it is possible to say whether someone is contagious.

What is actually being searched for with PCR?

  1. The "10 genes" (altogether 29,803 nucleotides long) of the constructed corona virus (never seen as a whole in reality or isolated) have all been assembled mentally only from very short pieces of nucleic acids (about 11 to 26 nucleotides long). Each "gene" therefore has an average of about 3,000 nucleotides. Of 2 "genes", only pieces of about 250-280 nucleotides in length are "detected" by PCR, whereupon it is claimed inadmissibly that these 2 genes have been detected (this is not true!). In reality, they do not even detect that, but pieces of RNA which have this approximate length. They never sequence what they propagate by PCR, but only claim without proof that they detect a specific piece of coronavirus gene by PCR. Not even this assertion is true!
  2. This is called specific sections, which are assigned to the "virus". Where are the control experiments documented that prove that the nucleic acids used for the alignment of the genome of the virus are actually viral in nature and do not cause tissue damage? Since this has not been done, nobody and I mean NOBODY! can and must claim that these sections are of viral origin!
  3. Everybody knows today that about 85% of the positive-tested persons have no symptoms (4), isn't it obvious that these very short sequence segments sought by PCR are the body's own structures and not, as claimed, of viral nature?

Claim: Many laboratories that evaluate the PCR tests do not stop the analysis at a Ct value of 30, but usually only at 37 or 40, as Ulf Dittmer explains. The Vice-Chairman of the German Society of Virology heads the virology department at Essen University Hospital. Since many suspected cases with disease symptoms are tested there, the Ct value is "in most cases significantly below 30". If, however, many non-symptomatic people are tested across the board, "then many Ct values will certainly also rise to a range above 30".

Rebuttal: There is half a truth in it. It is absolutely right that laboratories do not stop their tests at a cut-off (threshold) of 30. But even worse is the fact that Prof. Drosten's test (Berliner Charité) defines the cut-off value for positivity according to the Drosten-WHO protocol (page 60 and following) (5) as 45 amplification cycles. Such a high number of cycles causes massive false-positive results, since artifact formation in this area is extreme. This is because the error potential increases with each amplification cycle. 

We must never forget that the scare in January was only created because Prof. Drosten created it with a highly unscientific test.


Claim: The Berlin corona expert Christian Drosten recently made the following statement: "A Ct value of 30 in one laboratory is not the same in terms of viral load as a Ct value of 30 in another laboratory," he warned. In principle, however, he thought it was right to quantify the viral load of patients - for example by recording the Ct value of a reference sample. "I don't think it's wrong to say, especially in the USA, that let's just set a Ct value, I would go along with that," said Drosten

Rebuttal: It is interesting that Prof. Drosten, after more than 20 years since the PCR test has been used and sharply criticized by its inventor Kary B. Mullis, now also believes that it should at least be set to a uniform Ct value. It is shocking that this statement is only coming today, although many critics and others have been drawing attention to it for decades. Isn't it surprising that the scientists on whom politicians rely don't come up with such fundamental things like uniformity in such an important and essential matter by themselves? Should we still trust such scientists, like Prof. Drosten, who committed science fraud (6) and others who are also responsible for this madness? One should seriously think about that. 

The statement "to quantify the virus load of patients" has already been corrected. The short gene sequences which are searched for/produced by the test are not viruses, but debris. If you find a few screws, do you also say you have a whole cabinet?


Kary B. Mullis - the inventor of PCR - says that it cannot detect a virus

The PCR test cannot detect a virus, this was confirmed by the inventor Kary B. Mullis himself (7), he even called this practice "oxymoron", a contradiction in terms. In order to demand scientific proof, he even met with Prof. Luc Montagnier, the person who, according to official sources, is said to have discovered the HI virus. But he could not provide a single proof (8)|(9).


Claim: Usually the laboratories that make the test do not report the CT value to the relevant authorities. This would not be necessary and it would be sufficient to know whether someone is positive or negative

Rebuttal: We also have a problem with transparency - so everyone can do what they want. Not only can the PCR test not provide any proof and therefore every result is a false result, but everybody can and may legitimately manipulate the test in any way he wants. It should never be forgotten that this alleged non-existent pandemic has caused many people to lose their livelihoods, people to die, companies to go bankrupt and many other bad symptoms. We are not dealing with a trivial offence here. 


Claim: "Too little information lowers chance of discovering Superspreader. A survey of health authorities has shown that the value is often not transmitted at all. However, this means that health authorities without a Ct value usually have no indication of how infectious a person who tested positive is. This also means that they cannot focus on possible superspreaders, for example, whose PCR test indicates a very high viral load.

Rebuttal: It is an assertion that superspreaders exist, although not even proof of infection can be presented in this regard. Although several studies show that the claimed infected (in reality PCR-positive) did not fit into the cluster, it makes one shake his head. One must seriously ask oneself: How did all these scientists get into their position, if they already disregard the basic principles of scientific work? 

Here are some of countless examples listed:

  1. Diamond Princess (10) The cruise ship "Diamond Princess" was a perfect laboratory to observe a highly infectious pathogen in action. The first person to test positive had symptoms before boarding the ship on January 20. It was not until February 1 that they tested positive and on February 3, passengers were shown to their quarters, in some cases together with someone who tested positive. The passengers had interactions with the crew, e.g. to receive meals. Nevertheless, the transmission rate was only 16.7 %, which means that 83.3 % remained negative. Since almost half of the people who tested positive had no symptoms, it was not possible to avoid contact with people who tested positive based on observation of symptoms, and it meant that 92% came out of quarantine without experiencing symptoms due to COVID-19.
  2. Illinois Couple (11) An article in Lancet made a big deal about the suspected first case of personal contact in the United States, from a woman who had visited Wuhan in December 2019 to her husband who had stayed in the United States. Upon her return, she became ill, and later both she and her husband, who had not traveled to Wuhan, tested positive for COVID-19 [31]. Whether or not he had symptoms was impossible to say, since he suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, so he was constantly coughing and having difficulty breathing. More interestingly, the authorities identified 372 contacts of this couple and "were able to assess the risk of exposure and actively monitor the symptoms for 347". Not one of these people had an emergency visit to the emergency room with respiratory symptoms within 14 days of contact with the couple. 43 had some symptoms that could have been COVID-19 and became "persons under investigation" (PUIs). 26 had been exposed to the couple who had been classified as "medium risk or higher". But despite the presence of symptoms, contact with the couple, and close monitoring, not one tested positive for COVID-19.
  3. 206 Japanese evacuated from Wuhan (12) Of 206 Japanese evacuated from Wuhan, only three tested positive and two were found to have "no symptoms. Instead of being considered false positives, they were considered infected and possibly infectious.
  4. Fourth case of a novel coronavirus confirmed in Canada (13) A woman who returned to her Canadian university from China with disease was tested first negative and then positive. This was interpreted as an indication that she had very little virus in her body at the time of the first test and that the test was not sensitive enough. However, the PCR test is extremely sensitive, and if she had so little virus, how did she develop symptoms? An alternative explanation for her having reacted positively to the test in Canada may be because this virus is actually quite common or because the test does not target a virus but only measures the RNA produced by the human body in response to disease conditions.

Claim: According to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German Epidemic Control Agency, and their approach is most likely representative of what is happening in other countries, the CT value would only be an "analytical detail".

The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) is also unable to answer the question of whether and how many public health authorities in Germany are even aware of CT values from the laboratories. On request, the RKI merely states: "We assume that the laboratories will clarify the further procedure with the public health department in case of questionable results". After all, according to the RKI, the Ct value is "an analytical detail that supports the interpretation of the test result". However, the value is only one factor in the assessment. A Ct-value above 30 can "be used as a criterion for release from quarantine", according to the RKI.

Rebuttal: You could really laugh if it wasn't so sad. The RKI itself, the highest authority in Germany for "epidemics", also doesn't know who actually does what and how. It's as if everyone does what they want. According to the principle: Feel free, we are on a playground! The RKI admits that the test itself has no significance. This is correct, because a clinical diagnosis must always be made.

This is also what the package inserts from PCR manufacturers and other institutions repeatedly state that the PCR test cannot provide any proof.

  1. In an instruction (p. 38) of the US epidemic control authority CDC for the PCR test it says approximately: "Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection" (14) Translated it means: A positive test does not guarantee that the COVID virus causes an infection at all. And if you read between the lines, the COVID virus may not even be in the patient's body
  2. In the instructions for use for the SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Panther Fusion®️ System) from Hologic, Inc. 2002-03, it is stated on page 2: "Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don’t feel unwell.” (15)
  3. Creative-Diagnostics Product Information about the test kit "SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit (CD019RT): “This product is for research use only and is not intended for diagnostic use.” Intended use" is indicated as follows: "This product is intended for the detection of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The result of detection of this device is for clinical reference only and should not be used as the sole evidence in clinical diagnosis and treatment". (16)|(17)
  4. Information sheet on the current COVID-19 testing in Switzerland Still in May 2020 it was called leaflet of the Federal Office for Health BAG

A detailed additional explanation to the other PCR articles. 

The PCR is a production technique!

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplifies a DNA section contained in a sample, i.e. a part of the DNA sequence. Since the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not have any DNA - it is a so-called RNA virus - the RNA is converted into a DNA via an upstream step (reverse transcription/RT). The SARS-CoV-2 test is therefore an RT-PCR test. One starts with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA, and each cycle doubles the amount, which does not sound like much, but if you double it 30 times, you get about a billion times more material than at the beginning. So as a manufacturing technique, it's great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they make it. They emit a light with one wavelength and you get a response, you get light with another wavelength sent back. So they measure the amount of light that comes back, and that is their surrogate (replacement maker) for how much DNA is present. 

To use the PCR as a test, assume that you start with an unknown number of strands and end with an exponential multiple after n cycles. From the amount of material at the termination the initial amount can be estimated. A major problem is that, since the PCR is an exponential (doubling) process, the errors also grow exponentially.

In short, starting from one strand of DNA, the strand is split (divided into two parts) and then complementary strands can grow, the same process that occurs in a cell during mitosis (cell division).

Implicit in the use of a Ct number (cut-off/threshold) is the assumption that approximately the same amount of the original RNA (within a multiple of two) gives the same Ct number. However, there are many possibilities for errors in RT-PCR. There are inefficiencies in the extraction of the RNA, even greater inefficiencies in the conversion of the RNA into complementary DNA ( Professor Stephen Bustin noted that the efficiency rarely exceeds 50% and can vary slightly by a factor of 10) and inefficiencies in the PCR process itself. In a podcast with David Crowe, Bustin described the reliance on an arbitrary Ct number as "absolute nonsense, it makes no sense at all". It certainly cannot be assumed that the same Ct number indicates the same original amount of RNA in tests performed in different laboratories.

Professor Bustin explained that it is unwise to use more than 35 cycles, but it seems that nobody limits the cycles to 35 or less (the MIQE guidelines recommend less than 40).

Too many cycles could lead to false positive results because background fluorescence builds up in the PCR reaction.

The number of Ct cycles will significantly influence the number of positive tests. If the Ct cycle were changed from 37 to 35, there would be fewer positive tests and if it were changed to 39, there would be more positive tests. Even if the Ct number were standardized, it would still have a different meaning depending on the specific machines, chemicals and procedures used by different laboratories, and even within the same laboratory, changes could still be found between different runs. Without the simultaneous amplification of a known amount of "spiked" RNA, it cannot be assumed that a consistent borderline between positive and negative can be drawn with consistent Ct numbers.

Is the quantity meaningful?

If the method is efficient, three molecules of RNA could be detected in a large number of cycles. If there are people who have such a small claimed "virus" amount in their bodies that does not cause health problems, they would still test positive.

Is the claimed virus functional?

If only parts of claimed viruses or defective virus particles are present that are not infectious, they would still give positive tests. The tests do not prove the presence of a pathogenic virus capable of replication.

Can RT-PCR distinguish between infectious and non-infectious viruses?

NO! Here I would like to point out again that until today there is no evidence for an intact whole pathogenic virus. As a start I recommend the article:

Leading Corona researchers admit that they have no scientific proof for the existence of a virus read

How RT-PCR works in detail

The following steps are used to test for specific RNA:

The RNA must be extracted from a sample. This must be done carefully to ensure that the DNA is eliminated and that no chemicals are present that could inhibit further steps. It is impossible to guarantee the absolute purity of the RNA.

The RNA must be converted into complementary DNA (cDNA). This is done with the help of the enzyme reverse transcriptase and is never particularly efficient (50%). The amount of DNA produced can vary considerably, depending on numerous factors, perhaps by a factor of 10 (previously it was a factor of 100).

In the PCR part of the procedure, cDNA is present with primers and a probe (and possibly some stray DNA from the sample). The primers delimit the beginning and end of the cDNA to be amplified. PCR probe. In each cycle of this process (actual PCR) the amount of DNA is approximately doubled. Fluorescent markers are attached to the probe so that the amount of DNA produced can be estimated at each step by means of the amount of light.

Optionally, the resulting DNA can be sequenced to determine exactly what the bases ("chain of four different DNA beads") are.

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

Is there evidence that there are problems, or is this just a hypothesis?

There are now several papers that illustrate essentially impossible test results. One paper from China reported consecutive test results that were defined as either negative (N), positive (P) or doubtful (D, probably intermediate). Results for 29 individuals with unexplained results from 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 performed tests on 18 patients almost daily, and the majority went from positive to negative at least once and back to positive in one patient up to four times. In China, they found that 5-14% of patients who were discharged after two consecutive negative tests were later tested positive again, usually without new symptoms. In South Korea, they recently reported 91 such patients. A 68-year-old Chinese man went into hospital with symptoms and tested positive. After his symptoms subsided and he tested negative twice, he was discharged. But he tested positive again, was readmitted, discharged, tested positive again, readmitted and then discharged a third time.

Conclusions

The RT-PCR test for coronavirus seems to be designed to generate as many positive tests as possible. The fear of missing a "real" positive is so great that those who develop the specific test methodology based on RT-PCR completely ignore the risk of false positive results. False-positive results make the claimed epidemic appear larger and justify the complete shutdown of the economy, the locking of people in their own homes and the destruction of just about everything in people's lives that gives them pleasure.

Since there is no evidence of a pathogenic virus, the test is nonsense anyway, but even within the narrative it cannot say anything. 

Please also read the following articles about PCR:

PCR: A DNA test becomes a instrument for manipulation read

The PCR Test is not validated read

The science fraud by Prof. Christian Drostenread



Translated, adapted & reblogged Version - Original here



Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link

Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link

Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link

Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal




References & Notes:

(1) In Germany, for example, this standard of good scientific work has been made mandatory by the DFG (German Research Foundation) since 1998.

(2) Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore

(3) EFigure 3A Page 6 

(4) Ischgl-Studie zeigt: 85 % haben Corona­infektion unbe­merkt durch­gemacht (Ischgl study shows: 85 % have experienced corona infection unnoticed)

(5) WHO in house assays

(6) The science fraud by Prof. Christian Drosten

(7) Has province town become protease town?

(8) Why I Began Questioning HIV 

(9) Viral load and the PCR

(10) Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for COVID-19 using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship

(11) First known person-to-person transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the USA

(12) Three Japanese evacuees from Wuhan test positive for virus, two had no symptoms

(13) Fourth case of novel coronavirus confirmed in Canada

(14) CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel 

(15) SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Panther Fusion® System)

(16) Product Information SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit (CD019RT) (17) Common source for SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit



Report Page