Jump to content

Covid-19 Tests

Mitochondrial Eve

Recommended Posts

I think the issue of the Covid-19 tests deserves a thread in its own right. Particularly given reports of authorities going door to door in some countries such as Germany and Australia and expecting people to participate. Given the possibility of forced testing, the fallacy of the tests is therefore a massive issue and key to unravelling the Covid-19 lies.


Before the 16th May hack, a member whose name escapes me, had posted a list of questions to ask health professionals about the PCR test in order to stall and perhaps prevent becoming a test subject. I would like to recreate something similar perhaps based on the content of this article on the DI website which busts assumptions about Covid-19 including the tests.



Assumption 2: The PCR Test for COVID is Accurate

As I covered in previous articles, the PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was invented by scientist Kary Mullis as a manufacturing technique (since it can able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times), not as a diagnostic tool. COVID or SARS-CoV2 fails Koch’s postulates. The virus which shut the world down has still to this day never been isolated, purified and re-injected, or in other words, has never been 100% proven to exist, nor 100% proven to be the cause of the disease. When used to determine the cause of a disease, the PCR test has many flaws:


1.There is no gold standard to which to compare its results (COVID fails Koch’s postulates);
2. It detects and amplifies genetic code (RNA sequences) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin;
3. It generates many false positive results; and
4. Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered ‘virus’ is the cause of the disease!

Assumption 3: The Antibody Test for COVID is Accurate

If you realized by reading the last section that the COVID PCR tests are flawed and meaningless, get ready for more absurdity with the COVID antibody tests. As I covered in the article COVID Antibody Tests: Here Comes More Trickery and Fakery, there are numerous reasons why the antibody tests don’t really work and can be interpreted any way you want:


1. Old blood samples contain COVID antibodies, so if a test find antibodies, they may have been there for years or decades. There is no way to tell if they were recently acquired;
2. Like the COVID PCR test, they generate many false positive results;
3. They test for antibodies which may not even be specific for COVID;
4. Antibodies don’t actually prove immunity, since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies, and conversely, there are those with high antibody titers or counts, but who still get sick; and
5. The results can be interpreted any way you want. The presence of antibodies could mean you’re safe and immune to future COVID waves, or conversely, it could mean you’re dangerous (sick and infected right now). It’s all about the interpretation.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Pages 36-37 of the CDC instructions - under the heading 'Limitations' - for the use of the RT-PCR test make for interesting reading including the following two points.

  • Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
  • This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

This suggests that people could be diagnosed with Covid-19 whereas they are, in reality, infected with other viruses or even bacteria.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Rappoport has been outstanding on exposing the issues surrounding the tests.


He has in recent days blogged the following about how wearing masks could increase the incidence of of false positive test results.



Does wearing a mask cause diagnostic tests to read false-positive for COVID?


Suppose one of the most intense “safety practices”—wearing a mask—actually inflates the number of COVID diagnoses? Needless to say, it would be a bombshell. Suppose PCR and antibody tests turn out false positive results because people are wearing masks every day? How is that possible?


Actually, it’s quite simple. A person wearing a mask is breathing in his own germs all day long. He breathes them out, as he should, but then he breathes them back in.

It seems evident that this unnatural process would increase the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in his body; even creating active infection. Along with this, a decrease in oxygen intake, which occurs when a mask is worn, would allow certain germs to multiply in the body—germs which would otherwise be routinely wiped out or diminished in the presence of an oxygen-rich environment.


Here’s the key: Both the PCR and antibody tests are known for registering false-positive results, since they cross-react with germs which have nothing to do with the reason for the test.

If wearing a mask increases the number and variety of germs replicating in the body, and also increases the chance of developing an active infection…then the likelihood of a false-positive PCR or antibody test is increased. In other words, masks would promote the number of so-called COVID cases. This would, of course, have alarming consequences. People labeled “COVID” face all sorts of negative consequences. I don’t have to spell them out.


In past articles, I’ve shown that both PCR and antibody tests DO register false-positives because they react with irrelevant germs. For example, let’s consider the PCR: From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”:


“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”


Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit”:


“…non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”


Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.


Now let’s consider the antibody test—


Business Insider, April 3, 202: “Some tests have demonstrated false positives, detecting antibodies to much more common coronaviruses.”

Science News, March 27: “Science News spoke with…Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”

“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past? The tests need to be accurate, and avoid both false positives and false negatives. That’s the challenge’.”


That’s just a sprinkling of sources on both the PCR and antibody tests—revealing that both of these tests DO spit out false-positive results. Many of those false-positives are the result of cross reactions with irrelevant germs.


And as I stated at the top of this article, if wearing masks increases the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in the body, then it’s quite likely that masks will, in fact, contribute to false diagnoses of COVID. Now, we come to a different angle on this story. Everyone is aware that governors and other politicians are ramping up orders to wear masks to new insane levels. If indeed this order will result in more diagnosed COVID cases… How can we avoid looking at the financial incentives? It turns out that the states are receiving federal money for EVERY COVID case. The reference here is Becker’s CFO Hospital Report, April 14, 2020, “State-by-state breakdown of federal aid per COVID-19 case”:


“HHS recently began distributing the first $30 billion of emergency funding designated for hospitals in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act…”

“Below is a breakdown of how much funding per COVID-19 case each state will receive from the first $30 billion in aid. Kaiser Health News used a state breakdown provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by HHS along with COVID-19 cases tabulated by The New York Times for its analysis.”


$158,000 per COVID-19 case









The article goes on to list every state and the money it will receive for EACH DIAGNOSED COVID CASE. If mask wearing increases the likelihood of a COVID diagnosis, then: those states forcing new widespread mask dictates will be multiplying their federal $$$. And if you really want to cover the bases, every method of fake case-counting will have the same ballooning $$$ effect for the states.


ALL the so-called containment measures—masks, quarantine, isolation, distancing, lockdowns, economic destruction—bring on fear, stress, loneliness…lowering immune-system function…leading to more infections…which means more germs replicating in the body…which means more false-positive COVID diagnostic tests…and more human destruction…and more $$$ for the states.




  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @Mitochondrial Eve for starting this important thread.  Haven't yet fully digested this but would be very interested in knowing if there are to be any financial incentives within the UK state healthcare system for diagnosing and managing this 'virus'.  Thought I saw something about the amount per vaccine that's paid to surgeries was being increased, will try and find the source.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just that the tests are basically bogus, but also how the media reports every positive as an actual case of Covid-19, even though in over 80% of the positives the people actually are not infected with anything, and within the other 20%, they're positive because the people were exposed to one or more of the many Corona viruses always going around sometime within the last year or so.


The faulty tests and millions of false positives are masking the fact that Covid-19 does not exist, and it never did.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is likely to be rampant in a few weeks. Already today the boss at Heathrow was reported as saying they should have tests at airports rather than a general quarantine. Well, as Motleyhoo correctly pointed out above, with the test catching anyone harbouring a generic coronavirus, the possibilities are virtually endless. First the airports, then the supermarkets . . and so on, until you won't be able to breathe unless you've been vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have posted this before somewhere but it definitely needs to be included in this thread too.



COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose

Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”

But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.

Unfounded “Test, test, test,…” mantra

At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC. Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:

Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction. But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”


So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.


Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection. The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.


How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

Lack of a valid gold standard

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.


This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.


As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”


But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.


Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].


And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.

In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.


That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”

No proof for the RNA being of viral origin

Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.


As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.


The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand. And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.


Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.


But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).


We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:


Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”


Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.


That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).


Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.


We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”[3]

And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:

I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]

This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2.


In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.


In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.


The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.


One example is a study published in Nature on May 7. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.


For instance, the alleged “infected” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. And the slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.


Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.

Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) — could answer the following question I have sent them:


If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?

Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “stress” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable — an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983.


It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic. But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.


Regarding our question “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles. And although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:

RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),”

Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral.


Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn’t even go through a proper peer review process, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.

Irrational test results

It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard). Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.


For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.


A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.


A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.


Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:

It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”

In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “positive” people tested.


This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV). The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “positive” (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “negative” (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people). With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.


In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios.


The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.


But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “a shockingly low” PPV.


In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine,” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically.


In a second scenario of the journal’s article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the “positive” tests are false “positives.” That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered “positive” worldwide — supposing that the true “positives” really have a viral infection — we would get almost 2 million false “positives.”


All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”


This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

And the FDA admits that:

positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics[5].


To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read:

These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection”


For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the “viral load”?

There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes.


Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “qualitative” tests, contrary to the fact that the “q” in “qPCR” stands for “quantitative.” And if these tests are not “quantitative” tests, they don’t show how many viral particles are in the body.


That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.


That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called “viral load,” i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. “But this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal,” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out.


This is not only because the term “viral load” is deception. If you put the question “what is viral load?” at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They’re surprised to learn it’s actually RNA molecules.


Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is “burdened” with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out (which has not yet happened):


You take, let’s say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in. The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found. Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle?


With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. — the so-called “Drosten PCR test” — is a quantitative test.


But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “yes”. Instead, the Charité wrote:

If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases these are […] limited to qualitative detection.”

Furthermore, the “Drosten PCR test” uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay, while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay.

According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses, while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled “SARS-CoV-2”.


Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “positive” even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!) gives a “positive” result.

This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific.


That change of algorithm increased the “case” numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche, TIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm.

High Cq values make the test results even more meaningless

Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “cycle quantification” (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the “Drosten PCR test”, even have a Cq of 45.

The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.


“Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” as it says in the MIQE guidelines. MIQE stands for “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments”, a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.


The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, agreed, when he stated:

If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called “the bible of qPCR.”


In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false “positive” results).”


And, according to him, a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.


If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.


Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR.”


But this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper.


Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way. For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10 (see above interview).


Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test’s reliable informative value.


So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests—even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?


Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding.


Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010.


And experts criticize “that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown“ since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is obviously no better off.


Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.


And a “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.”


Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.



[1] Sensitivity is defined as the proportion of patients with disease in whom the test is positive; and specificity is defined as the proportion of patients without disease in whom the test is negative.

[2] E-mail from Prof. Thomas Löscher from March 6, 2020

[3] Martin Enserink. Virology. Old guard urges virologists to go back to basics, Science, July 6, 2001, p. 24

[4] E-mail from Charles Calisher from May 10, 2020

[5] Creative Diagnostics, SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Skweem said:

Want to know why the Covid test swab is shoved so far up your nose. They want direct access to your central nervous system: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652706/


And if you follow the link for articles that reference it you find from Jan 2017;


Systematic Approach for the Formulation and Optimization of Solid Lipid Nanoparticles of Efavirenz by High Pressure Homogenization Using Design of Experiments for Brain Targeting and Enhanced Bioavailability



The nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, used for the treatment of HIV infections, are reported to have low bioavailability pertaining to high first-pass metabolism, high protein binding, and enzymatic metabolism. They also show low permeability across blood brain barrier. The CNS is reported to be the most important HIV reservoir site. In the present study, solid lipid nanoparticles of efavirenz were prepared with the objective of providing increased permeability and protection of drug due to biocompatible lipidic content and nanoscale size and thus developing formulation having potential for enhanced bioavailability and brain targeting. Solid lipid nanoparticles were prepared by high pressure homogenization technique using a systematic approach of design of experiments (DoE) and evaluated for particle size, polydispersity index, zeta potential, and entrapment efficiency. Particles of average size 108.5 nm having PDI of 0.172 with 64.9% entrapment efficiency were produced. Zeta potential was found to be −21.2 mV and the formulation was found stable. The in-vivo pharmacokinetic studies revealed increased concentration of the drug in brain, as desired, when administered through intranasal route indicating its potential for an attempt towards complete eradication of HIV and cure of HIV-infected patients.


Edited by Nobby Noboddy
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading through the scientific data in some of the posts above just confirms my suspicion that there was never a SARS-COV-2 in the first place.  It never existed.  No one asks the question, why was the WHO coincidentally sitting in Wuhan waiting for a "wild virus" exactly when SARS-2 supposedly jumped from an animal to a human right there exactly where they were?


The next question - given the amount of time it should have taken to develop a test kit for such a complex virus, how were they able to produce 1,000's of test kits immediately after the supposed initial infections at ground zero to test for a virus that never existed before?   How did they know months in advance to produce test kits for a virus that never existed before?


We actually have not a single instance in all of human history of a virus anywhere near as sophisticated as Covid-19 jumping from an animal to a human.  There are suspected cases of viruses, like bird flu, doing this, but when they do it they infect a very few people then disappear.  This is because a virus that infects humans has to circulate throughout the population for many generations while it evolves to become sophisticated enough to be as complex and deadly as something like the flu.  The probability of an animal virus doing this are extremely low because they don't have time to evolve around our defences before our immune system stops them.


Covid-19 is so complex it supposedly has over 30 symptoms now.  The odds of a virus jumping from an animal and then immediately being that sophisticated are next to impossible.  They have used sci fi movies, TV shows, and fear mongering news to get people to believe in totally false scenarios that are actually nearly impossible to ever happen in reality.


  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Thanks to Max Igan for including this excellent video at the end of his latest video (which has already been taken down by Youtube and can be found on Bitchute here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/jOsT1UNHRaom/.


The video below explains how the PCR test amplifies genetic material by doubling it in dozens in cycles and then determining if the test subject has enough of the RNA fragment to be considered positive. If you amplify the test enough, everybody would test positive. The cut off point of the amplification is arbitrary and varies according to the type of test - of FDA approved tests, there are 10 different cut off points.


It also examines the rationale behind the PCR tests and compares how the findings fit the exosomes vs virus theories.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This has been posted on the main DI website today and appears to be pretty strong evidence of the PCR testing scam. It has made Ivor Cummins do a double take - he is shocked that NHS Guidance on the testing shows that they are using 45 cycles. The more amplification cycles are used, the more genetic material is picked up resulting in more (false) positive results.




Here is the direct link to the NHS guidance - it is page 16 which provides the evidence of the 45 cycles being undertaken.






From a cursory online search into the number of cycles that should be undertaken, I have come across this link to a journal article that recommends a maximum of 35-40 cycles. Furthermore, positives tests arising from close to this maximum number of cycles (35-40) "need to interpreted more carefully".




No wonder Ivor Cummins thinks that the use of 45 cycles is nuts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is part of a posting I made a few days ago that refers to Prof. CARL HENEGHAN mentioning "CYCLE THRESHOLD" of 25 (I am sure that he says that in the video, perhaps someone can watch it and confirm that I am not deaf or senile, well deaf yes, but not...... yet!) so that 45 cycle number quoted is good news (if you see what I mean!!!).


Link 3

The week in 60 minutes with Andrew Neil – 3 September 2020 | Event | The Spectator TV

REFERRING to this link which is to a very recent 3rd Sept. 2020 VIDEO BROADCAST by ANDREW NEIL – This week in 60 minutes.

Andrew Neil begins with talking about cases (from testing) and has Fraser Nelson talking about cases (from tests) and people admitted to hospitals.

Later he has Professor CARL HENEGHAN (around 6mins 30secs)

Prof. Refers to the consequence of Lockdown causing many deaths.

He then refers to year BEFORE (i.e. 2019) having about 15,000 less deaths from usual flu deaths and “HANGING on by THEIR FINGERNAILS”.

In particular at around 14 mins he refers to pcr test and the AMPLIFICATION aspect.

He refers to a “CYCLE THRESHOLD” of 25 – this is much lower than the threshold level of 35 mentioned in other links AND MANY MANY more times LESS than the 37 to 40 cycles used.


THANK YOU Mitochondrial Eve for your valuable and INFORMATIVE postings.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2020 at 9:30 PM, Concerned Citizen said:

Here is part of a posting I made a few days ago that refers to Prof. CARL HENEGHAN mentioning "CYCLE THRESHOLD" of 25 (I am sure that he says that in the video, perhaps someone can watch it and confirm that I am not deaf or senile, well deaf yes, but not...... yet!) so that 45 cycle number quoted is good news (if you see what I mean!!!).


I have taken a look at Prof Carl Heneghan's interview with Andrew Neil - thank you for the link.


It is around 15:10 that he starts talking about the threshold level of the PCR test. He says that the RNA shedding, picked up by test, is evident for 78 days as it is 20 base pairs long meaning it takes longer to degrade the RNA. So when it comes to asymptomatic people, it is not possible to tell whether they have an active infection or if they could have had the infection 2 months ago.


Prof Heneghan therefore suggests a threshold level of a million copies per mL in a sample, which is equivalent 25 cycles, for identifying whether or not somebody is infectious. He criticises the way the test is being deployed at the moment in that whatever amount of RNA is found, you are deemed positive irrespective of disease impact.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government are offering up to £450 per person to take the coronavirus test. Why the need for the bribery?


The Coronavirus (Retention of Fingerprints and DNA Profiles in the Interests of National Security) (No. 2) Regulations 2020


Statutory Instrument 2020 No. 973 was laid before Parliament on 10th Sept 2020 without consultation. Further to Statutory Instrument 2020 No. 391 (1st April 2020), there has been an extension of the retention period of biometric material from 1st October 2020 until 24th March 2021 for the purposes of "national security".




This appears to confirm what many sceptics have suspected all along - that the tests are all about DNA harvesting and that the government are desperately clamouring to get as much as possible through bribery and fear.



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Rappoport's blog yesterday concerned a case which has been filed against the state of Ohio and Governor Mike DeWine.




He provided a link to the case papers which can be found here:




For the purposes of this thread, paragraphs 60-61 of the papers are of particular interest and read as follows:




As luck would have it, the link to the CDC instructions is in post 2 above which made it easy to find them again.




You can indeed find the above quote in the final paragraph of page 39 which appears to be confirmation, from the horse's mouth, that SARS-CoV-2 has not been properly isolated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2020 at 12:17 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said:



This appears to confirm what many sceptics have suspected all along - that the tests are all about DNA harvesting and that the government are desperately clamouring to get as much as possible through bribery and fear.



With prolonged period of very low interest rates engineered by the bankers and a willingness to engineer a particlar outcome there's no shortage of government money it seems.


The National Security meme is of course used to quench discussion but what they will do with the data gathered is fairly straightforward and would include handing it over to commercial interests so the vaccine companies can help target specific groups  develop new drugs or give to the bioweapons guys for similar research, or identify the country of origin of various people who have made their way to these shores or track down errant fathers or establish the legitimacy of heirs or prevent certain people from having children with other certain people or..... 





Edited by serpentine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Dr Sam Bailey, who comes across as very credible, explains how her medical training necessitated "pre-test probability" as a fundamental concept of diagnosing a patient. This requires a patient to have a likely chance of having a target disease such as tell-tale symptoms before being tested.


Testing for Covid-19 in NZ started out on this basis during their strict 4 week lockdown which led to 100 days of no community transmission. However, this policy switched in August which led to cases being identified and lockdowns implemented again.


She also explains why the PCR test is not suited for screening purposes and her doubts about the Covid vaccine.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2020 at 5:48 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said:



EXACTLY! Something fishy going on here. I noticed this immediately when they brought these hideous "swab tests" out. They told us that standing next to someone "infected with COVID" who breathed on you, that they were so "infectious" you'd get infected too, so told us to wear masks. Yet they have to shove a huge cotton bud down the nose into the throat?! No way is anyone coming near me with one of those disgusting things.

Edited by itsnotallrightjack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, itsnotallrightjack said:


EXACTLY! Something fishy going on here. I noticed this immediately when they brought these hideous "swab tests" out. They told us that standing next to someone "infected with COVID" who breathed on you, that they were so "infectious" you'd get infected too, so told us to wear masks. Yet they have to shove a huge cotton bud down the nose into the throat?! No way is anyone coming near me with one of those disgusting things.


Only in the last few days, it has been reported that one recipient of the nasal swab test has now suffered leakage of brain fluid due to the test.


It is still maintained by the mainstream, however, that the swabs present low risk. In this case, the woman in question had an undiagnosed and rare condition which it is said was a factor in causing the leakage.




Coronavirus nasal swab test causes brain fluid leak in US patient

A coronavirus nasal swab test ruptured the lining at the base of a US woman's skull, causing cerebrospinal fluid to leak from her nose and putting her at risk of brain infection, doctors reported in a medical journal Thursday.

The patient, who is in her 40s, had an undiagnosed rare condition and the test she received may have been carried out improperly, a sequence of improbable events that means the risk from nasal tests remains very low.

But health care professionals should take care to follow testing protocols closely, Jarrett Walsh, senior author of the paper that appeared in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, told AFP.

People who've had extensive sinus or skull base surgery should consider requesting oral testing if available, he said.

"It underscores the necessity of adequate training of those performing the test and the need for vigilance after the test has been performed," added ear, nose and throat specialist Dennis Kraus of, Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who wasn't involved in the paper.

Walsh, who practices at the University of Iowa Hospital, said the woman had gone for a nasal test ahead of elective hernia surgery, and afterward noticed clear fluid coming out of one side of her nose.

She subsequently developed a headache, vomiting, neck stiffness, and aversion to light, and was transferred to Walsh's care.

"She had been swabbed previously for another procedure, same side, no problems at all. She feels like maybe the second swab was not using the best technique and that the entry was a little bit high," he said.

In fact, the woman had been treated years earlier for intracranial hypertension -- meaning that the pressure from cerebrospinal fluid that protects and nourishes the brain was too high.

Doctors at the time used a shunt to drain some of the fluid and the condition resolved.

But it caused her to develop what's called an encephalocele, or a defect at the base of the skull which made the brain's lining protrude into the nose where it was susceptible to rupture.

This went unnoticed until old scans were reviewed by her new doctors, who carried out surgery to repair the defect in July.

She has since fully recovered.

Walsh said he believes the symptoms she developed were a result of irritation to the lining of the brain.

If the problem hadn't been treated, she could have developed a life-threatening brain infection from bacteria that traveled up the nose.

Most testing protocols call for clinicians to follow the path of the floor of the nose, which lies above the roof of the mouth, rather than pointing the swab up -- or if they point it up, to do so with great care.

Walsh said that though this was likely a very rare occurrence, it was a reminder of the need for high-quality training, given that hundreds of millions more tests will be performed before the pandemic is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Cease and desist papers - Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten by Dr. Reiner Füllmich - Unofficial English Translation.docx.pdf - Google Drive


Hope the above link works. 

It is a link to the Cease and desist papers served on Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten by Dr. Reiner Füllmich and dated 15/12/2020

It is 16 pages BUT well worth reading through it. The link refers to an English Translation.


I am sure that David Icke is aware of this BUT if not he soon will be.


This gives me some hope. No doubt someone on here will put a negative slant on it but please if not then do reassure me that this is a step in the right direction.


Edited by Concerned Citizen
extra added and adjusted layout
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

COVID: the virus was never proven to exist; a statement from Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell

Jon Rappoport

LINK: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/02/26/covid-the-virus-was-never-proven-to-exist-a-statement/


Statement on isolation by Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell, MA: ‘The virus does not exist’

David Icke

LINK: https://banthis.tv/watch?id=6039055094464e1d7fd6e21f

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...