A massive, worldwide COVID testing campaign is underway, costing countries billions of dollars. But more and more experts are coming forward, claiming that the misuse of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing, the most common test for COVID, is resulting in a vast number of false positives. Many are denouncing the testing as illogical and fraudulent, stating that it shouldn’t be considered diagnostic. Yet these are the very tests that are used to report daily numbers around the country that then justify the policies to squander freedom and depress the economy.
We must demand transparency from state health departments and governors who are relying on these values and ask them to invalidate and retract numbers that lead to deception; fraudulent reporting during a state of emergency is a felony.
Equally important, the willing acceptance of these values comes at a great cost to society:
- There’s an alarming loss of basic human rights and freedoms from the shutdowns, including schooling, medical procedures and income. The World Bank estimates that more than 100 million people will be forced into extreme poverty due to the economic shutdown.
- Many are experiencing resultant mental health crises as fear, anxiety, isolation and depression skyrocket; the childhood population has been significantly affected.
Shutdowns and restrictions on individuals and businesses must not be based on testing alone, especially PCR testing. Why?
How the PCR Test Works
PCR testing takes a swab sample of DNA and runs it through cycles of amplification. False positives are a result of the lab using a high number of amplification cycles, which is the number of times the RNA particles are magnified. A cycle threshold (or CT) of 34 cycles or more means the test is 100% useless as a measure of a true positive case. (Florida is the first state to require all labs to report the misleading CT.)
To guarantee that a positive is a positive, the PCR test must be run at 17 cycles; otherwise, accuracy becomes increasingly questionable as the cycles increase.
- By the time you get to 33 cycles, 80% are false positives.
- Up to 90% of positive tests at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a cycle threshold of 30.
- With a CT above 35, the chance of receiving a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.
Accuracy is of upmost importance in a public crisis. The most valid way to test for infection is to look for a “live” virus using a viral culture. PCR tests cannot distinguish between live viruses and particles that cannot infect you and others, nor can they rule out other viruses or bacteria — you can get a positive result from the flu or other coronavirus fragments.
It follows that a positive PCR test does not indicate infectiousness. Thus, the positive test result doesn’t represent a case, let alone an actual illness. As science writer and expert in molecular genetics, Pieter Borger, PhD, stated, “‘Confirmed cases’ is a nonsense number.”
This is validated by the World Health Organization (WHO), which issued an advisory on January 20, 2021 for labs processing PCR tests. The advisory instructs technicians to carefully determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer. It goes on to say that “careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed,” asserting that a positive PCR test result does not automatically constitute a case of COVID-19.
So we must ask ourselves, what does a positive test even mean? What percentage of the “positive cases” used to keep society locked down and socially isolated is from those who are asymptomatic, based solely on a positive PCR test?
Other Issues with PCR Testing
Both the United States and the United Kingdom have reported large-scale testing kit contamination.
Additionally, testing site/lab contamination has led to “countless” false positives.
Finally, the test can pick up on non-infectious virus fragments long after an active infection has resolved.
Making History with a “Test-Only Model”?
“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.” – Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Prize-winning American physicist
Testing is designed to substantiate clinical observations. Per the WHO, a PCR test is a diagnostic aid that must be looked at in conjunction with multiple other factors. Yet this appears to be the first time in history that a pandemic is being measured and managed through testing alone, without clinical oversight to verify the tests or even justify the administration of a test. Without this clinical observation and oversight, it’s impossible to determine what percentage of positive tests will never be symptomatic or never be infectious.
Can we change course on this testing and reporting catastrophe? Can we hold health departments and other regulatory agencies and powers-that-be accountable for their acquiescence in this charade? Our human rights and freedoms, including our children’s future — hinge on our response to this unreliable testing model that’s defrauding the public. And it will undoubtedly be instructional for the next pandemic — how we respond today will set a precedent for tomorrow.
How Public Officials Can Help
Ask your state and local health department how they are responding to the WHO’s new guidance for the proper use of the PCR test. Also ask them to:
- Count only those test results that are run at 30 cycle thresholds or less.
- Publish the PCR cycle thresholds for their area, region or state.
- Retract any case numbers that are based on cycle thresholds above 30.
If you truly care about tracking, tracing and accuracy of results, then you should care about this information.
We’re told we must comply without question if we care about others. Many are doing it willingly, but too many are being pressured into getting tested for COVID, sometimes repeatedly. However, genuinely caring for others doesn’t involve weaponizing fear or selling false solutions. It is truthful and transparent. And, in today’s fear- and anxiety-ridden climate, those attributes are more important than ever.
- BMJ: http://bit.ly/3b2Ep6n
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://bit.ly/385Zz1u
- Clinical Infectious Diseases: http://bit.ly/2X3nAQz
- Corman-Drosten Eurosurveillance Report: http://bit.ly/3sZxn8N
- European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases: https://bit.ly/2KV6OAy
- Swiss Policy Research: http://bit.ly/3obGEYB
- The Telegraph: http://bit.ly/2X32txs
- Twitter – Virologist Zack Frankfurt: https://bit.ly/2Mtxsks
- World Bank: http://bit.ly/3ncVgpk
- World Health Organization January 2021 Advisory: http://bit.ly/3j3HncR
Note: Use this information to make public comments at state and local health department meetings. You can also use this information to bring concerns to any elected official and ask them to do their part to correct this injustice. Lastly, share the information with your friends and contacts.