Social News – COVID-19

 

PCR Tests (molecular)

 

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test runs cycles that amplify tagged DNA or RNA sequences, and the smallest contaminants can ruin the test completely.  The amplification of DNA in PCR has to be initiated using short strands that are complementary to the target DNA, called primers. Keith Jerome, the head of virology at the University of Washington, points out that “primer design is still somewhat of an art, and not fully predictable.” (source)

 

Video:  The Evolution of PCR (7 mins)

 

It should be noted that the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test in this case is being used in emergency circumstances and according to its inventor, Kary Mullis, was not designed as a tool to detect infectious disease.  (See Appendix B).

 

PCR does not isolate and identify viruses. 

PCR does not provide RNA sequences of pathogens.

PCR offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples.

PCR cannot determine an infected from non-infected sample. (video (mark 12:24))

 

RT-PCR stands for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. (Wikipedia)

 

Professor Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson point out: “When a diagnostic test is studied in one setting – for example, in hospitals – and not in the intended population for which it is used – the community – problems with interpreting the results occur. Mass testing has taken off and the limitations of widely-used tests such as PCR have been ignored. PCR tests on their own cannot distinguish whether you are actively infected and infectious or whether you are recovering from the disease and simply have dead particles of Covid in your system. Up to a year ago a handful of laboratories were doing PCR – a highly delicate and specialised technique, vulnerable to contamination. The enormous expansion of testing in the community has meant procedures and training have been rushed through. Warnings by bodies such as the College of American Pathologists of the problems of using different uncalibrated PCR kits have been ignored. The detection of ‘cases’ in the community tell us little (apart from driving lockdowns). How many are serious; how many are contagious? No one knows.” (article) (AO COVID-19 - What Do Other Professionals Say?)

 

"The PCR test can detect disease … many months after the initial episode, and in those instances the likelihood that those individuals are infectious is very, very low." - Chief of Microbiology PHOL, Dr. Allen

 

Update:  27-Nov-2020

An extensive review of the Corman-Drosten et al. report (recommending use of the PCR test to identify SARS-CoV-2 and diagnose a positive case of COVID-19) was officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board requesting retraction of the report due to significant errors. 

 

www.cormandrostenreview.com

 

 

Report: External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results

 

 

PCR Lab Visit: Whistleblowers Kevin McKernan, Bobby Malhotra Explain Why COVID Tests are "Garbage" (53 mins) / (alternative link)

 

Update:  14-Dec-2020

The World Health Organization publishes a report (“WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05”) that declares “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”  (article)

 

Update:  22-Jan-2021

In an interview with James Corbett for the Corbett Report, microbiologist Dr. Dolores Cahill (www.dolorescahill.com) notes that 1,500 PCR tests that she sequenced resulted in Influenza A & B and not SARS-CoV-2. (video mark 14:50)

 

Update:  26-May-2021

Nurse Erin Marie Olszewski confirms that PCR cycle thresholds (CT) greater than 35 are meaningless when it comes to COVID-19, but CTs have been set as high as 40.  Recently CDC lowered the CT to 28 and stopped counting asymptomatic cases for vaccinated people on May 1, 2021.  CTs are still high for non-vaccinated people.  The result is a fabrication of effectiveness for the shot while simultaneously recording high COVID counts for non-vaccinated people. (video (mark 5:50)AO COVID-19 - What Do Nurses Say?

 

Update:  8-Aug-2021

Out of the frying pan into the fire:  CDC quietly announces that the current PCR tests will no longer be the standard for testing for COVID-19 effective January 1, 2022.  The new PCR test will have a higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinillated primers.  For the layperson Dr. Tom Cowan explains that “instead of the old PCR test they are going to use a hundred different unique beads.  These beads contain the primer sequences and they’re all attached to these beads.  These beads are mixed with viral samples from the patient and then they are put into a PCR amplification cycles … there’s more of these primer sequences (like a hundred) and they attach it to a chemical called biotin … biotinillated primers … which then get put into the old-fashioned PCR thermocycler to be cycled so that they can be caught and then you get a result.  The upshot … is now you will be able to say you have 10 different viruses all at the same time … or 20 or 100 all different viruses all at the same time … which of course, you may need a vaccine for each one of these viruses.”  (video [mark 15:30])

 

Update:

 

 

Cycle Threshold

 

COVID testing is typically performed using a nasopharyngeal swab, a 6-inch long swab inserted deep into the nostril. The swab is rotated for a while and then it is sent to a lab where a PCR test will dramatically amplify the amount of genetic material captured and then compare it to the DNA or RNA of a particular segment of the COVID virus (reference RNA).

 

To get enough genetic material to test the PCR process increases the genetic material present by copying it and then copying it again over and over. Each of these increasing steps is called a “cycle” and the genetic material in the solution is reacted against the reference DNA to determine a positive.  If the sample contains a large amount of COVID virus it will react positive after only a few cycles, while a sample with small amounts of genetic material will require more cycles to amplify enough genetic material to get a positive result.

 

Since the PCR test amplifies traces of COVID-19 through cycles, a lower number of cycles needed to get a positive suggests the presence of a higher viral load for the person being tested and therefore a higher contagion potential.

 

The number of cycling required to identify viral material in a given sample is called the cycle threshold (Ct).  (source)

 

The USA’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director, Dr. Anthony Fauci states that “… if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more, that the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule … you almost never can culture virus from a 37-threshold cycle … even 36 … it’s just dead nucleotides, period.” [video mark 4:20] (article)

 

Many of today’s COVID-19 PCR tests have set the limit at 40 or more cycles. This means the sample is positive for the coronavirus if the test process requires up to 40 cycles to detect the virus. (source

 

“Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left.”  Dr. Michael Mina, epidemiologist, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.  (article)

 

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

 

45 cycles is the maximum limit recommended, above that would give 100% positive results.  (Dr. Andrew Kaufman video (47 mins) (mark 29))

 

PCR testing has many variables influencing the results of the tests.  The test is susceptible to contamination and there are errors inherent in the PCR test itself (i.e. whether there is a gold standard for comparison***); how the procedure is done (i.e. cycle threshold) and the specific thing that is being measured (i.e. whether the sample is concentrated or diluted). 

 

In Ontario test swabs are forwarded to one of 40+ laboratories across the province and in 4 to 6 hours one machine can process and analyze around 96 PCR tests.  It is unclear whether the cycle threshold is dictated to the laboratories, who sets the cycle threshold for the tests, what cycle threshold is set, how often it changes and what prompts a change.  It is possible that the cycle threshold could be manipulated to control the positive/negative case counts.

 

Public Health Ontario – Report: Focus on An Overview of Cycle Threshold Values and their Role In SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time PCR Test Interpretation

 

*** “If positive control material is limited, synthetic RNA sequence, identical to the target region of the virus, is used as an alternative.”  (Page 3)

 

Real-time PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 detection in Canadian laboratories

 

Video: COVID Diagnosis with PCR | Misinterpreting results | Cycle threshold explained (11 mins)

 

 

News – PCR Tests & Cycle Threshold

 

Date

Source

Title

Comment

2021-06-01

rumble.com

BC Health Officer admits PCR test is unreliable

 

Bonnie Henry

-      Asymptomatic not tested

-      70% false positive

 

2021-05-18

off-guardian.org

How the CDC is manipulating data to prop-up “vaccine effectiveness”

 

Kit Knightly

-      CT 35-40 to test for COVID in unvaccinated people

-      CT 28 to test for COVID in vaccinated people & asymptomatic or mild “breakthrough infections” not counted

 

2021-03-15

Bitchute / Rebel Media

Doctor has huge concerns with the PCR test – interview with Dr. Mark Trozzi (part 1)

 

David Menzies interviews

Dr. Mark Trozzi, Canada

2021-03-10

21stcenturywire.com

The Fine Print: UK Government Finally Admits PCR Test Generates False Positives

 

 

2021-01-26

New York Post

China using anal swabs to detect COVID-19: report

 

Elizabeth Elizalde

 

Washington Post

2021-01-24

Youtube / DailyClout

PCR Lab Visit: Whistleblowers Kevin McKernan, Bobby Malhotra Explain Why COVID Tests are "Garbage" (53 mins)

 

Kevin McKernan, Bobby Malhotra

 

 

2021-01-19

Youtube / corbettreport

Freedom Airway #SolutionsWatch (24 mins)

 

James Corbett interviews

Prof. Dolores Cahill

PCR Tests [mark 14:40]

-   Whistleblowers in the USA stated SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the buffer of the PCR-test [mark 18:30]

 

2021-01-15

Conscious Resistance Network

The PCR Deception (Documentary) (15 mins)

Derrick Broze

2021-01-10

Bitchute / shotinfo

Under the Wire Interviews Dr. David Rasnick Regarding HIV and COVID 19 (90 mins)

 

Dr. David Rasnick

[viral load mark 13 mins - PCR 15:20]

-   No such thing as a non-mutated virus [16:33]

-   “There is no way they could come up with a PCR test for a specific virus but you might be able to get the family” [17:24]

-   Consensus sequence

-   Metagenomics “they don’t have the virus to begin with” [mark 18:45]

 

2020-12-29

Youtube / Pamela Popper

New WHO Guidance on PCR Tests (11 mins)

Pamela Popper [mark 2:43]

2020-12-17

Principia-scientific.com

WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has A ‘Problem’

 

John O’Sullivan

2020-12-14

World Health Organization

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2

 

(original link (now broken))

2020-11-27

CormanDrostenReview.com

Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020

 

Borger, Malhotra, Yeadon, Craig, et al.

-   Recommendation to retract the original publication recommending PCR test for COVID-19

2020-11-17

Bitchute / Dr. Tom Cowan

The PCR Test is not a valid Diagnostic Tool (11 mins)

 

Dr. Tom Cowan

AO What do Doctors say?

2020-11-12

Jamanetwork.com

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Test Results Among Patients Who Recovered From COVID-19 With Prior Negative Results

Liotti, Menchinelli, Marchetti, et al

-   Some COVID-19 recovered patients test positive suggesting new infection [or not, need to address PCR test inadequacies]

2020-11-09

Bitchute / Panteondk

Don’t Get Tested – Morgan C. Jonas (Australia) (48 mins)

 

Morgan C. Jonas

Cycle thresholds ~40 in Australia [mark 26:09]

2020-11

Researchgate.net

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results

 

Borger, Malhotra, Yeadon, Craig

2020-10-28

CBC News

Is more testing behind the record numbers of COVID-19 cases in Canada? Your testing questions answered

Emily Chung, Kieran McMurchy, Cheryl Brown

-      Impact from increase in testing

-      Wastewater surveillance

-      Nasal swabs (good for 72 hrs unfrozen)

“Rapid tests 70-80% accuracy vs 95% accuracy”

2020-10-04

Bitchute / Spiro Skouras

We are being lied to!  Here is how … (26 mins mark 16:28)

 

Spiro Skouras, Dr. Thomas Cowan

2020-10-03

Before It’s News

Attorney: Fake PCR Test Created Fake Covid-19 Pandemic Scandal

 

Reiner Fuellmich

2020-10-01

Westphaliantimes.com

Government of Ontario Confirms Westphalian Times Reporting on Cycle Thresholds

 

Marie Oakes

2020-09-29

Youtube / Dr. Sam Bailey

Covid-19: Who Fact-Checks the Fact-Checkers? (10 mins)

 

Dr. Sam Bailey

-   Lab vs real world testing

2020-09-25

Westphaliantimes.com

International experts suggest that up to 90% COVID cases could be false positives – UPDATED

 

Marie Oakes

2020-09-19

Youtube / Anthony Kuster

COVID Diagnosis with PCR | Misinterpreting results | Cycle threshold explained (11 mins)

 

 

2020-09-16

Government of Ontario

Public Health Ontario .pdf

 

website

2020-09-03

RedState.com

NY TIMES: Up to 90% Who've Tested COVID-Positive Wrongly Diagnosed! TRUTH: A Whole Lot Worse! (Pt 3/3)

 

Michael Thau

2020-09-03

RedState.com

NY TIMES: Up to 90% Who've Tested COVID-Positive Wrongly Diagnosed! TRUTH: A Whole Lot Worse!! (Pt 2)

 

Michael Thau

2020-09-03

RedState.com

NY Times Raises Questions About COVID Testing [Updated]

Michael Thau

-   article “fact-checked” &  retracted by publisher

2020-08-29

NYTimes.com

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

Apoorva Mandavilli

“up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus”

2020-08-06

Youtube/BBC Newsnight

How accurate are coronavirus test? (13 mins)

 

-   PCR test explanation

2020-07-31

Youtube / BrightCanNews

No Mandatory Testing for Ontario Teachers Due to 50% False-Positive Rate (1 min)

 

Dr. Yaffe, government of Ontario

AO What do Doctors say?

2020-07-13

USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

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

CDC

“Positive results are indicative of active infection with

2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

“False-positive test results are more likely when prevalence is moderate to low.”

2020-07-21

streetloc.com

Sweden Stops using PCR Tests - RNA from Viruses can be Detected for Months After Infection

translated from Swedish Public Health Agency

source

 

2020-07-01

Bulgarian Pathology Association (BPA)

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

 

Torsten Engelbrecht, Konstantin Demeter

2020-05-08

Bitchute / Pedros83

Presidente de Tanzania (Africa) dice que la papaya y las cabras dan positivo al test COVID

 

John Magufuli, Presidente de Tanzania

Commentary 26 mins

 

AO News – Trail of Death

 

2020-05-04

MSN.com

COVID-19: Pawpaw and goat test positive for virus - President Magufuli

 

-          a pawpaw, a goat and a quail tested positive

-          President John Magufuli of Tanzania

2020-04-15

Alberta Health Services

COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group Rapid

Response Report (.pdf)

-   “clinical sensitivity and specificity values have not been determined for lab developed RT-PCR testing in Canada”

 

 

See also:

 

AO News – COVID-19 Testing

 

AO COVID-19 – What do Doctors Say?

 

 

 

Return to AWARE-Ontario.ca Home Page

 

List of Ontario’s Issues

 

What Can I Do?

 

 

Disclaimer: This information has been compiled through private amateur research for the purpose of allowing the reader to make an informed and educated decision.  However, while the information is believed to be reliable, completeness and accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

 

 

 

 


APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

 

https://awareontario.nfshost.com/AWARE-Ontario/Issues/Soc_Miscellaneous/C19_PCR_Testing.htm

 

AO News – PCR Testing

 

 

APPENDIX B (Dr. Kary Mullis)

 

Dr. Kary B. Mullis (December 28, 1944 – August 7, 2019), American biochemist and the inventor of  polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test (Wikipedia) who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993, died of pneumonia a couple of months before COVID-19 became a pandemic.

 

“PCR .. it’s just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something.  That’s all it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that”.  Dr. Kary Mullis (video)

 

 

Date

Source

Title

Comment

2021-05-22

Bitchute / CamelotDaily

The Mysterious Death of Dr. Fauci’s Most Notable Critic (4 mins)

 

Greg Reese

2020-12-10

Bitchute / thechadchaddington

Kary Mullis (PCR test creator) talks about Fauci before he died, just before all this (2 mins)

 

Dr. Kary Mullis

-   Anthony Fauci

 

AO News – PCR Testing

 

2020-11-14

Lewrockwell.com

Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste

 

Joseph Mercola

2020-10-04

Bitchute / Spiro Skouras

We are being lied to! Here is how … (26 mins)

 

Spiro Skouras

-   Dr. Kary Mullis

2020-09-20

Bitchute / Alt Media

Kary Mullis Uitvinder PCR Test (20 secs)

 

 

2007-10-03

Youtube / Nobel Prize

Kary Mullis’ Eureka Moment (4 mins)

 

Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

2005-07

Nobelprize.org

Kary B. Mullis Interview (22 mins)

 

Kary B. Mullis, Michael Smith