How false positives from the PCR test have given rise to fake covid stats and forced vaccinations

Synopsis:

Reports are streaming in, declaring a Dark Winter for the world due to COVID19. The media rushes to tell the public that case numbers are on the rise again. In response, case numbers are used to support calls for lockdowns, travel and dining restrictions, and the push for compulsory vaccines.

However, in recent months an abundance of evidence has shown that the “gold standard” procedure for detecting COVID-19 is unreliable and could be producing untold numbers of false positives. If this is the case, why are health officials around the world calling for more tests?

This report is a brief look into the history of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure and the evidence that PCR is unreliable and should not be used as a determinant for the number of COVID-19 cases or as a factor in political decisions. Please share with friends and family to keep them informed, and if someone shared this with you, please watch with an open mind.

The PCR Deception

In the months since the COVID-19 panic began health authorities around the world have encouraged the public to “get tested” to help track the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the strain of coronavirus that causes COVID19. However, as fear and hysteria subside, the scientific community and public at large are calling into question the efficacy of the test used to determine a patients status.

The main test that is used to determine an individual status involves the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. This incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. The PCR method amplifies a small segment of DNA hundreds of times to make it easier to analyze. For COVID19, a process known as Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 by amplifying the virus’ genetic material so it can be detected by scientists.

PCR is sometimes described as a technique or process, but for simplicity we will refer to it as a test. PCR is viewed as the gold standard, however, it is not without problems. PCR amplifies a virus’s genetic material and then each sample goes through a number of cycles until a virus is recovered. This is known as the “cycle threshold” and has become a key component in the debate around the efficacy of the PCR test.

In late August 2020, I attended a press conference in Houston, Texas to ask Houston Health Authority Dr. David Persse about concerns about PCR.

Dr. Persse says that when the labs report numbers of COVID-19 cases to the City of Houston they only offer a binary option of “yes” for positive or “no” for negative. “But, in reality, it comes in what is called cycle-thresholds. It’s an inverse relationship, so the higher the number the less virus there was in the initial sample,” Persse explained. “Some labs will report out to 40 cycle-thresholds, and if they get a positive at 40 – which means there is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of virus there – that gets reported to us as positive and we don’t know any different.”

Persse noted that the key question is, at what value is someone considered still infectious?

“Because if you test me and I have a tiny amount of virus, does that mean I am contagious? that I am still infectious to someone else? If you are shedding a little bit of virus are you just starting? or are you on the downside?.”

He believes the answer is for the scientific community to set a national standard for cycle-threshold. Unfortunately, a national standard would not solve the problems expressed by Dr. Persse.

UK Parliament and Scientists Have Concerns About PCR Test

In the first weeks of September 2020 a number of important revelations regarding PCR came to light. First, new research from the University of Oxford’s Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England found that the PCR test poses the potential for false positives when testing for COVID-19. Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study said there was a risk that an increase in testing in the UK will lead to an increase in the risk of “sample contamination” and thus an increase in COVID-19 cases.

The team reviewed evidence from 25 studies where virus specimens had positive PCR tests. The researchers state that the “genetic photocopying” technique scientists use to magnify the sample of genetic material collected is so sensitive it could be picking up fragments of dead virus from previous infections. The researchers reach a similar conclusion as Dr. David Persse, specifically they state:

“A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.”

Heneghan, who is also the the editor of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, told the BBC that the binary approach is a problem and tests should have a cut-off point so small amounts of virus do not lead to a positive result. This is because of the cycle threshold mentioned by Dr. Persse. A person who is shedding an active virus and someone who has leftover infection could both receive the same positive test result. Heneghan also stated that the test could be detecting old virus which would explain the rise in cases in the UK and said setting a standard for the cycle threshold would eliminate the quarantining and contact tracing of people who are healthy and help the public better understand the true nature of COVID-19.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I personally find it amazing how these videos disappear from youtube in a matter of hours. So in case the above two links go offline, here is a backup source:

www.bitchute.com...

This is good info and a great breakdown, S+F thank you.

Two issues that annoy me are that they don’t come up with a standard to translate different tests and equipment like we do with countless other procedures. They could do this in many ways and standardize the process.

The other is that they don’t let the medical provider see the CT values from the positive test which would help because some of the tests are different with different targets and it would help them create a better treatment algorithm.

The problem is that an inaccurate test is bad both ways. If it shows positive when it is not, it can cause hardship to the person and also if it shows a false positive, it also can falsly assure the person he/she/it has immunity when they never had the disease.

The test should have been outlawed a while back, it never was created to use as a diagnostic tool for a disease. Even the one who created the test said it should not be used for what it is being used for. It is a good tool for some things, but not for this.

I just can't trust these tests.

I found out yesterday that a friend has been in contact with three friends in the UK. Each of the three people had made an appointment and were due to take the test but only one actually went.

Each of the three people then received their test results. All three came back positive.

HOW can a test come back positive if NO TEST WAS TAKEN?


Answer...the test result is irrelevant because results are being unethically inflated to meet the agenda.

The chance to apply a label is all that is being done with these tests. Fearmongering at it's worst.

A "positive" test is going to require more testing until they get a "negative". Now if I am in the business of testing and the Government, who is paying for the tests, provides no guidance on testing criteria, you can be sure as hell I'm going to take the route that is most advantageous to my company.

It's a good video, and certainly a good argument to be made for a fixed cycle threshold.

The problem I have with this video is it doesn't mention false negatives as being an equal problem, and doesn't provide any real data on how big an issue false positives actually are. I mean, we all agree it's a problem, but to what extent?

Time seems to be a key issue for both; if you test during the early incubation period whilst the viral load is still low, you could end up with a false negative, but test again the day after and you might end up with a positive. On the flip side, if you get a test when there is no live virus but just viral RNA copies, you could end up with a "false" positive; you've passed the transmission period now and undergoing quarantine will provide no benefit.

We want to identify the virus during the incubation period, but that's difficult because to capture the virus within this window of time is very short.

Ultimately, you're always going to have an underlying false negative/false positive rate (i.e. you can't remove human error), but we want to know the degree these errors are happening, as that's when we can start making statements like "fake Covid stats", which isn't really evidenced in the video you shared.

This has been the problem from the start.

There is no direct correlation between a "case" and an actual serious covid infection. The vast majority of cases are asymptomatic meaning people don't actually get sick.

What we really want to know is why certain people are predisposed to getting sick.

The lack transparency and disingenuous analysis of available data makes it hard to know what to believe at this point.

a reply to: Rolci

He believes the answer is for the scientific community to set a national standard for cycle-threshold. Unfortunately, a national standard would not solve the problems expressed by Dr. Persse.

I already knew we all carry certain amounts of the virus.
If you've had the common flu you have residuals correct?

Political problems whether they be expressed by Persee or not.
Problems for the population is power for the politician.
The problems won't go away until the politicians do.

GOOD WORK
SnF

originally posted by: DeusInAbsentia

Ultimately, you're always going to have an underlying false negative/false positive rate (i.e. you can't remove human error), but we want to know the degree these errors are happening, as that's when we can start making statements like "fake Covid stats", which isn't really evidenced in the video you shared.

You are essentially correct on every point you mentioned. The only thing I would add to mine is that these two videos are just the tip of the iceberg. I personally do not research the conspiracy theories and how deep they go, but I am aware of a multitude of discrepancies with the whole pandemic, as are many. I could mention the empty test centers around the world from a time when home tests were not available yet, when figures were high - where did those come from?

Then there was the whole quandry with the masks that restrict your oxygen supply and you keep breathing in the CO2 trapped between your face and the mask, lowering your immune system health, putting unnecessary strain on it, amont a number of other issues with it (viruses pass through, etc.)

What about the empty hospitals when there was a state of "absolute pandemonium" declared? Remember the empty wards and the nurses dancing in the empty hospitals?

And remember how the whole thing started? They said it was bats, then they find evidence it was engineered. Not to mention the whole 5G issue tying in, Wuhan being first in the world and so on, which got crrepier when there was total lockdown first time and everything was at a standstill EXCEPT 5G installations, which the engineers refused to comment about, while they were working without masks or social distancing.

I could go on and on. One would assume a "simple" pandemic should be no ground for all the above, yet it's a rabbit hole that goes as deep as you're willing to dive into it, not unlke the subject of UFOs and aliens, or life after death.

Pandemics have always existed, and they used to be simple. We are definitely living in VERY DIFFERENT TIMES now.


To make it all even more suspicious, most videos disappear from youtube in hours, the few that remain are impossible to find in search. If you look for the empty test centers yoy find all the videos by news channels. I can't really doubt they made some centers empty so they can report on this so the other videos can't be found. Videos like

www.youtube.com...

youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: nerbot
I just can't trust these tests.

I found out yesterday that a friend has been in contact with three friends in the UK. Each of the three people had made an appointment and were due to take the test but only one actually went.

Each of the three people then received their test results. All three came back positive.

HOW can a test come back positive if NO TEST WAS TAKEN?


Answer...the test result is irrelevant because results are being unethically inflated to meet the agenda.

The chance to apply a label is all that is being done with these tests. Fearmongering at it's worst.

"We don't take kindly to wacky conspiracy wackos around here".

" Now skeeter he ain't hurt'n nobody". Credit South Park

Thanks for the information. Definitely not confirmation bias just
because it fits a suspicion.

Lord give me strength not hate my enemies.

The PCR hoax. Dr Drosten. Here is a documentary about the swine flu vaccine hoax. Main player: Dr Drosten.


The better one was deleted, i only found this four part thing. Guess maybe to hide it from the youtube censor algorithm that kills everything that isn´t on line with the official corona "truth". If you watch this you will know what a Dejavu feels like. It´s the almost exact same script like the corona script, with some of the same main players.

Then we have something the compilant mass media doesn´t want to talk about. They are afraid that the people, which often are called stupid tinfoil hats because they have questions, recognize that not they are the stupid conspiracy theorists but those that call everybody else, who still thinks for himself and questions the rulers, a conspiracy theorist.

Portuguese appeals court finds PCR tests unreliable and lifts quarantine

The judgment of the court can be read here. Due to the lack of language skills, reference is made at this point to the presentation and interpretation of the judgment on tkp.at, where the tenor is quoted as follows:

"On the basis of the currently available scientific evidence, this test [the RT-PCR test] is not in and of itself able to determine with certainty whether the positivity actually corresponds to an infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, two of which are paramount: the reliability of the test depends on the number of cycles used; the reliability of the test depends on the viral load present.

With reference to Jaafar et all.(2020; ) the court concludes that “if a person tests positive by PCR, if a threshold value of 35 cycles or higher is used (as described in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the likelihood that this person is infected is

a reply to: Rolci

I’ve been saying this from the beginning. So have many others on here. People need to open their eyes.

I don´t know where the other half of my post ended up. I am not in the mood to do it all again and just leave the link here.
There are additional links. Please translate for yourself.

Corona Doks

Well done.

For me, Elon Musk's little experiment was enough to confirm what so many had said, what we all suspected. If he had four tests in one day, same test, same placed, same person administering it, and 2 came back negative, 2 positive that tells me that a vast majority of the positives are false.

Sadly, many people do not want to hear that. I have said before, the most widespread and most dangerous illness we are dealing with is not physical, but mental; and it's an induced mental illness. So many people have been literally brainwashed into a state of irrational, subjective fear and they are embracing that fear, leaning into it, reveling in it. If someone tries to share a factual positive note, they literally get angry. It like they find some kind of weird security in the fear and if you do anything to reduced that fear they become defensive.

Sadly, this is a mental illness the many people seem to want to keep, so there's not cure if they are not willing to realize the deceit and let it go.

a reply to: Rolci

Excellent post and Good information.

Star and Flag for you .

The people in charge know these test are inaccurate , yet they do nothing .

There is no greater dis-honor than to have the power to act and do nothing .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

What we have here is fraud on an international level. 2 courts in Portugal have declared the PCR tests so unreliable that any quarantine based upon those tests are not legal. German lawyers are attempting the same.

US Courts seem silent, but maybe nothing has been brought before them.

Check this:

Retraction request letter to Eurosurveillance editorial board
November 28, 2020
This is the retraction-request letter sent to Eurosurveillance by the main & co-author’s, written by Dr. Peter Borger, enclosed to the extended Review Report submission via the Eurosurveillance online-submission portal. Submission date was 27th November 2020.

Nov 26th 2020,
To: Editorial Board Eurosurveillance
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
Gustav III:s Boulevard 40
16973 Solna
Sweden
Subject: External Review and request to retract the paper of Corman et al, published in Eurosurveillance January 23, 2020.
Dear editorial board Eurosurveillance,

We, an international consortium of life-science scientists, write this letter in response to the article “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” published in Eurosurveillance (January 23rd, 2020) and co-authored by Victor M Corman , Olfert Landt , Marco Kaiser , Richard Molenkamp, Adam Meijer, Daniel KW Chu, Tobias Bleicker , Sebastian Brünink, Julia Schneider , Marie Luisa Schmidt , Daphne GJC Mulders , Bart L Haagmans , Bas van der Veer , Sharon van den Brink, Lisa Wijsman, Gabriel Goderski, Jean-Louis Romette, Joanna Ellis, Maria Zambon, Malik Peiris, Herman Goossens, Chantal Reusken, Marion PG Koopmans, and Christian Drosten.

This paper (hereafter referred to as “Corman-Drosten paper”), published by “Eurosurveillance” on 23 January 2020, describes an RT-PCR method to detect the novel Corona virus (also known as SARS-CoV2). After careful consideration, our international consortium of Life Science scientists found the Corman-Drosten paper is severely flawed with respect to its biomolecular and methodological design. A detailed scientific argumentation can be found in our review “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results”, which we herewith submit for publication in Eurosurveillance.
Further, the submission date and acceptance date of this paper are January 21st and January 22nd, respectively. Considering the severe errors in design and methodology of the RT-PCR test published by “Eurosurveillance”, this raises the concern whether the paper was subjected to peer-review at all.

A previous request from our side (Dr. P. Borger; email 26/10/2020) to the editors of “Eurosurveillance” to provide the peer review report of the Corman-Drosten paper has not been complied with. We have enclosed your email reply (dated 18/11/2020) indicating that you do not wish to disclose important information to solve this conundrum.

We are confident that you will take our scientific objections seriously and recognize that there is no alternative but to accept our request to retract the Corman-Drosten paper.

Sincerely,
Dr. Pieter Borger (MSc, PhD), Molecular Genetics, W+W Research Associate, Lörrach, Germany

Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, specialist in Virology / Immunology / Human Biology / Cell Biology, University Hospital Würzburg, Germany

Prof. Dr. Klaus Steger, Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Molecular Andrology, Biomedical Research Center of the Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany

Prof. Dr. Makoto Ohashi, Professor emeritus, PhD in Microbiology and Immunology, Tokushima University, Japan

Prof. Dr. med. Henrik Ullrich, specialist Diagnostic Radiology, Chief Medical Doctor at the Center for Radiology of Collm Oschatz-Hospital, Germany

Rajesh K. Malhotra (Artist Alias: Bobby Rajesh Malhotra), Former 3D Artist / Scientific Visualizations at CeMM – Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (2019-2020), University for Applied Arts – Department for Digital Arts Vienna, Austria

Dr. Michael Yeadon BSs(Hons) Biochem Tox U Surrey, PhD Pharmacology U Surrey. Managing Director, Yeadon Consulting Ltd, former Pfizer Chief Scientist, United Kingdom

Dr. Kevin P. Corbett, MSc Nursing (Kings College London) PhD (London South Bank) Social Sciences (Science & Technology Studies) London, England, UK

Dr. Clare Craig MA, (Cantab) BM, BCh (Oxon), FRCPath, United Kingdom

Kevin McKernan, BS Emory University, Chief Scientific Officer, founder Medical Genomics, engineered the sequencing pipeline at WIBR/MIT for the Human Genome Project, Invented and developed the SOLiD sequencer, awarded patents related to PCR, DNA Isolation and Sequencing, USA

Dr. Lidiya Angelova, MSc in Biology, PhD in Microbiology, Former researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Maryland, USA

Dr. Fabio Franchi, Former Dirigente Medico (M.D) in an Infectious Disease Ward, specialized in “Infectious Diseases” and “Hygiene and Preventive Medicine”, Società Scientifica per il Principio di Precauzione (SSPP), Italy

Dr. med. Thomas Binder, Internist and Cardiologist (FMH), Switzerland

Dr. Stefano Scoglio, B.Sc. Ph.D., Microbiologist, Nutritionist, Italy

Dr. Paul McSheehy (BSc, PhD), Biochemist & Industry Pharmacologist, Loerrach, Germany

Dr. Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens, (MSc, PhD), specialist in Laboratory Medicine (clinical chemistry), Maasziekenhuis Pantein, Beugen, the Netherlands

Dr. Dorothea Gilbert (MSc, PhD), PhD Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology. DGI Consulting Services, Oslo, Norway

Dr. Rainer Klement, PhD. Department of Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Germany

Dr. Ruth Schrüfer, PhD, human genetics/ immunology, Munich, Germany,

Dr. Berber W. Pieksma, General Practitioner, The Netherlands,

Dr. med. Jan Bonte (GJ), Consultant Neurologist, the Netherlands, Dr. Bruno

H. Dalle Carbonare (Molecular biologist), IP specialist, BDC Basel,
Switzerland
Link

originally posted by: nerbot
I just can't trust these tests.

I found out yesterday that a friend has been in contact with three friends in the UK. Each of the three people had made an appointment and were due to take the test but only one actually went.

Each of the three people then received their test results. All three came back positive.

HOW can a test come back positive if NO TEST WAS TAKEN?


Answer...the test result is irrelevant because results are being unethically inflated to meet the agenda.

The chance to apply a label is all that is being done with these tests. Fearmongering at it's worst.

I can second this, it happened to a friend of mine.
Story checks out 👍🏼

The first covid-19 variant has been discovered in America.

mobile.twitter.com...

Let's cancel 2021 all together!

FYI: The CDC allows "guesses" and "presumptions" to be certified Covid-19 cases. No positive test required.

Code only a confirmed diagnosis of the 2019 novel
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as documented by
the provider or documentation of a positive
COVID- 19 test result. For a confirmed diagnosis,
assign code U07.1, COVID-19. This is an exception
to the hospital inpatient guideline Section II, H. In
this context,“confirmation” does not require
documentation of a positive test result for COVID19;
the provider’s documentation that the
individual has COVID-19 is sufficient.

From section 1a. at: www.cdc.gov...

When the CDC said "guesses" were OK for labeling a death as Covid-19, they also produced the above document. Same month...April 2020.

Right after the huge $2.2 Trillion dollar CARES Act bill was passed on March 30th...showering billions of $$$$ on medical providers. Big money for each Covid-19 case, and big money for each Covid-19 death.

In July 2020, When Congress pressed CDC Director Redfield on whether medical providers were abusing the Cares Act to increase revenues, he responded, "There's some of that...Yes."

And people are wondering why all other sicknesses are WAY down? Actually, they're only down on paper...not in reality.

The "codes" on the forms submitted are what activates Uncle Sam's Golden Goose.

In reality, you were REALLY diagnosed with the FLU..and treated approrpriately for the FLU.

Just the batch-listing sent to the CDC showed "code U07.1"...aka: Covid-19. The more of those, the bigger the financial haul...and the more Mainstream Media screams warnings of massive surges, escalations, blah blah blah.