The PCR test is not validated 

The PCR test is not validated 

translated by Corona Investigative

Many people already know that the PCR test cannot detect a virus, as the inventor Kary B. Mullis himself confirmed. (1) He even called this practice "oxymoron", a contradiction in terms. In order to demand scientific proof, he even met with Prof. Luc Montagnier, the man who, according to official sources, is said to have discovered the HIV virus. But he could not provide a single proof. (2)

In this article we will deal with the validation of the PCR test. This does not exist. Ba-sically it must be understood that as long as there is no clean isolation of the claimed virus (3) and the Koch's postulates are not followed, no test in this world can give a statement about whether someone is infected! I will not go into this article about what the PCR test does exactly, I will explain this in the next article. You will look at the following points, a validation can be 100% excluded. The PCR test is not a gold standard, as some strangely enough without any logic claim.

Sanjaya Senanake admits that the test ist not a reliable source for getting accurate results.
  1. Drosten's PCR test cannot be validated at all, simply because Drosten and his team presented the test before the very first publication of the Chinese (no sequences were published at that time). Also the WHO promoted this test 3 days before the first release. (4)
  2. The Charité test protocol of January 2020, developed by Prof. Drosten and his colleagues, was not validated upon publication, but was accepted and distributed by the World Health Organization WHO and the Robert Koch Institute (5).
  3. Not only was the test created by Drosten before the first publications of the Chinese, so of course there were no gene sequences available, so he used old sequences from 2003! Based on which assumptions, experiments and control experiments can Prof. Drosten claim that his test procedure, with which he only detects partial areas of 2 (two) genes from the genome of a total of 10 (ten) genes of the corona virus, detects a whole, active and disease-causing virus? And not just frag-ments of a virus, after an assumed successful battle of the immune system or the presence of "defective" or "incomplete" or "harmless" viruses in our genetic material, which are typical and make up 50% of the gene masses of our chromosomes? See Dr. Stefan Lanka - Misinterpretation-virus-part-2 (6)
  4. On 23.01.2020: Publication of the development of the test method of Prof. Drosten On page 3 of this article, left column, 8 lines from the bottom, he de-scribes the first and decisive step of his approach: "Prior to the release of public virus sequences from 2019-nCoV cases, we relied on social media reports announcing the detection of a SARS-like virus. Therefore, we assumed that a SARS-related CoV was involved in the outbreak." At that time, there was no clinical data available to support such an assumption. It goes on to say: "In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community. We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology."
  5. An instruction (p. 38) of the US CDC on the PCR test states the following: "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" 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.
  6. A paper from Singapore by doctors and public health officials provides an insightful look inside the coronavirus tests. Hidden in the supplementary reference material - Young BE et al Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA. (7) - where few people will see it, it reveals some important questions about tests (important chart is "EFigure 3A "page 6): "The test was shown to randomly test patients positive and negative alternately. Interestingly, the pa-tients who showed the strongest symptoms were not the patients who needed fewer cycles of the PCR test to get a positive result". (8)
  7. The instructions for use for the SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Panther Fusion®️ System) from Hologic, Inc. 2002-03 are: "Some people become infected but don’t develop any symp-toms and don’t feel unwell.” (page 2)
  8. Creative-Diagnostics Product Information on 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". Source of the test kit (9) and following the general source (10) for this. 
  9. A study in the Journal of Medical Virology concludes that the internationally used corona virus test is unstable: false positive rates, as well as false negative rates. (11)
  10. Regarding the PCR tests [nucleic acid tests] and the diagnostics repeatedly praised by Dr. Drosten, reference should be made to the following 2 sources, both of which show how faulty the detection of SARS-CoV2 is with the PCR method, reference to: Dr. Wodarg - What does the test actually measure? (12)
  11. Virologist Drosten says it himself in principle: I quote: "Sure: Towards the end of the course the PCR is sometimes positive and sometimes negative. That's where chance plays a role. If patients are tested negative twice and released as cured, positive test results may well be obtained again at home. ...which doesn't mean it's a reinfection."
  12. A Chinese Corn Stream (SCMP) article states: "However, because the test involves several steps, an error at a certain stage could affect the result, said Li Yan, head of the Diagnostic Center at Wuhan University People's Hospital, in an interview with the state broadcaster CCTV on Sunday." He said that the test is a "multi-step test" that can be used to test for the presence of maize in a variety of diseases. (13) .... "The accuracy rate of the test is only 30 to 50 percent, said Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, during a CCTV interview on Wednesday." 
  13. Experts from England and Canada are extremely concerned about the way epidemics are identified and treated. Jerome Burne reports on "Coronavirus: a reliable test is badly needed. We don’t have one." (14)
  14. It says in the New York Times: "Coronavirus Test Kits Sent to States Are Flawed, C.D.C. Says" (15)
  15. The BBC reports that people were tested more than 6 times until they were finally positive at the 7th time and some other crazy stuff. (16)
  16. As if that wasn't crazy enough, the players of the German football teams 1 FC Cologne and Borussia Monchengladbach show that they alternately tested positive and negative, see the article at Rubikon. (17)
  17. How can a test that detects the different SARS viruses of bats, dogs, tigers, lions, domestic cats and humans, which have been changing and spreading worldwide for many years, be specifically named for the detection of an allegedly only four-month-old SARS-CoV-2? (18)
  18. The President of Tanzania has tested the test - it turned out that the test also tested positive for goats, rabbits, domestic cats, (papaya) a fruit! (19) (20)
  19. The PCR test cannot detect a virus, as the inventor Kary B. Mullis himself confirmed; (21) he even called this practice "oxymoron" (a contradiction in terms). In order to demand scientific proof, he even met with Prof. Luc Montagnier, the man who, according to official sources, is said to have discovered the HI virus. But he could not provide a single proof. (22) Kary B. Mullis - Why they cannot be used to prove the HIV infection. (23)
  20. Doubts about corona outbreak in German senior citizens' centre are becoming loud. Oddities: none of the positive ones had symptoms! A second test is ordered, which showed a completely different picture: Suddenly only 2 of the 56 people test-ed positive! 11 slightly positive... The test is not binary! The LABORATORY says they did everything by the book, so it wasn't the lab!!! This test belongs in the trash can. (24)
  21. A false positive rate of currently 85% knocks the whole insanity out of the ground, this means that even if a test really could detect a virus, which it cannot, then with 100 positive tested, with the current data of the RKI's state calendar week 24, 85 false positive results would be! Samuel Eckert (25) has provided a fantastic analysis including an Excel list, (26) which includes the search rate. Dr. med. Steffen Rabe (27) has also presented an analysis of the calculation and has also provided a calculator. (28)
  22. One of the first interesting studies that came out of the Department of Epidemiolo-gy and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an 710061, China, (29) showed that there can be a false positive rate of up to 80.33%. After a few weeks the pressure became so high that it was with-drawn. The main author spoke of a "delicate matter" (30) which could indicate political pressure, as one NPR journalist suspected.
  23. Independently of this study, however, the susceptibility to errors of so-called PCR virus tests has been known for a long time: In 2006, for example, a mass infection with SARS corona viruses was "proven" in a Canadian nursing home, which later turned out to be common cold corona viruses. (31)
  24. 22.03.2020: Lothar Hirneise: Question about the PCR test "Can someone explain to me why you need a PCR test to detect corona? PCR tests multiply the virus BEFORE testing. According to virologists like Drosten, the virus must multiply millions of times before symptoms appear. Then you don't need a PCR test anymore, you can detect it directly in your blood! Strange, isn't it?" (32)
  25. It was Drosten himself who said in his podcast (33) that his test also responds to RNA sequences (corona) of cattle and bats. Drosten also said that his test is false-positive if another corona virus (cold virus) RNA sequence is present in humans. (vaccinations).
  26. Absence of a valid gold standard This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their accuracy - more precisely their "sensitivity" and "specificity" (34) - by comparison with a "gold standard", which means the most accurate method available. As an example of a pregnancy test, the gold standard would be pregnancy itself. But as the Australian infectious disease specialist, Sanjaya Senanayake, for example in an ABC TV inter-view in an answer to the question: "How accurate is the [COVID-19] test?" He explained: "If we had a new test to detect [the bacterium] staphylococci in the blood, we would already have blood cultures, which is our gold standard that we have been using for decades, and we could compare this new test to that. But for COVID-19 we don't have a gold standard test." (35) (36) -------- Jessica C. Watson of Bristol University confirms this. In her recent article "Interpreting a covid-19 test result" published in the British Medical Journal, she writes that there is "no gold standard "for COVID-19 testing that is so clear". (37) But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or pointing out that only a virus detected by isolation and purification (Koch's postulates) can be a solid gold standard, Watson seriously asserts this The "pragmatic" COVID-19 diagnosis itself, especially the PCR tests themselves, "is possibly the best available" gold standard ". However, this is not scientifically based. Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to use the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard for evaluating the PCR test, there are no particular symptoms for COVID-19, as even people like Thomas Löscher, former head of the The Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists has conceded. (38) And if there are no particular symptoms for COVID-19, the COVID-19 diagnosis - contrary to Watson's statement - cannot serve as a valid gold standard. Moreover, "experts" like Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. a clear virus de-tection, can be the gold standard.
  27. After 35 days of isolation at sea, 57 Argentinean fishermen tested positive.  57 Argentinean fishermen tested positive for coronavirus, although they spent 35 days at sea and tested negative before their departure". We see here again the nonsense of the PCR tests. (39)

The list does not reflect completeness, but it shows what a manipulation tool the PCR test is. Through this manipulation it is possible that we are deprived of our basic rights and that people are frightened. The phrase "We have a testing epidemic" is entirely accurate.

Translated & 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


(1) Has provinetown become protease town?

(2) Why I Began Questioning HIV

(3) Misinterpretation of virus

(4) The science fraud by Prof. Christian Drosten

(5) Diagnostic test from Berlin in demand worldwide

(6) see 3

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

(8) Supplementary Online Content - Young BE, Ong SWX, Kalimuddin S, et al; for the Singapore 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak Research Team. Epidemiologic features and clinical course of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 Singapore. JAMA.doi:10.1001/jama.2020.3204

(9) Product Information for SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit (CD019RT)

(10) Product Information SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit

(11) Stability issues of RT-PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 for hospitalized patients clinically diagnosed with COVID-19

(12) What does the test actually measure?

(13) Race to diagnose coronavirus patients constrained by shortage of reliable detection kits

(14) Coronavirus: a reliable test is badly needed. We don’t have one

(15) Coronavirus Test Kits Sent to States Are Flawed, C.D.C. Says

(16) Are coronavirus tests flawed?

(17) The Test Fraud

(18) Two Cats Test Positive For Coronavirus: How To Keep Your Pets Safe | NBC Nightly News

(19) Tanzania tests motor oil, plants and various animals on Corona. With amazing results

(20) President queries Tanzania coronavirus kits after goat test


(22) Why I Began Questioning HIV (From the House of Numbers Deluxe Edition DVD)


(24) Zweifel an Corona-Ausbruch in Seniorenzentrum werden laut

(25) PCR tests Up to 80% false positive and a tool for manipulation

(26) Excel Calculator by Samuel Eckert  

(27) The more tests, the less basic rights... Statistics for advanced users

(28) Excel calculator by Dr. med Steffen Rabe 

(29) WITHDRAWN: Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients

(30) In Defense Of Coronavirus Testing Strategy, Administration Cited Retracted Study

(31) An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-reactivity with SARS Coronavirus

(32) Lothar Hirnreise facebook post

(33) Coronavirus update: Need abbreviations for vaccine approval

(34) COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

(35) ABC TV interview Australian infectious disease specialist Sanjaya Senanayake

(36) ABC TV interview Australian infectious disease specialist Sanjaya Senanayake

(37) Interpreting a covid-19 test result

(38) see 34

(39) Mystery as 57 Argentine fishermen test positive for coronavirus despite spending 35 days at sea and testing negative before they left

Report Page