Mitochondrial Eve Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) Thanks for reviving this thread @DarianF - I appreciate it. Around Christmas time, I emailed information to a relative about PCR testing issues that I had accumulated up until that point. Some of the info I sent may duplicate what is already in this thread but I will post it all nevertheless. PCR Test Issues PCR Unable to Distinguish if Infectious Virus is Present The PCR test cannot detect if infectious virus is present and should therefore not be used as a diagnostic tool – the test can only detect viral genetic material. Kary Mullis invented the PCR test and died last year. But he himself said that the PCR test doesn't tell you if you are sick. The link below includes a video where he explains this. Until this video emerged, there had been considerable disagreement as to whether Kary Mullis had even said this but the video has now settled the issue as far as I am aware. https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/ NHS Guidance on 'Understanding Cycle Threshold in SARS-Cov-2 RT PCR' also confirms, on page 6, the inability of the test to identify if infectious virus is present: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf Similar can be said of CDC instructions. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download Pages 36-37 of the CDC instructions - under the heading 'Limitations' - for the use of the RT-PCR test include 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. The final paragraph of page 39 also appears to confirm that SARS-CoV-2 has not been properly isolated. The matter of whether the virus has even been isolated is controversial to say the least. “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for the detection of the 2019 n-CoV RNA were tested with characterised stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA of known titer spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium to mimic clinical specimen.” Number of Cycles It is well established that anything above 35 cycles of the PCR test is useless as too many false positives are generated. The more cycles used, the more risk of generating a false positive result. Some even think that no more than 25 cycles should be used. Unfortunately, NHS documents confirm that anything up to 45 cycles is being used – see page 16. https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/90111431-8aca-4614-b06633d07e2a3dd9/Guidance-and-SOP-COVID-19-Testing-NHS-Laboratories.pdf Even Dr Anthony Fauci, the equivalent of Chris Whitty (Chief Medical Officer) in the UK, has publicly admitted that PCR thresholds over 35 are useless. Because there is no standardised worldwide cut off point for the PCR test cycle threshold, there is a danger with the cycle threshold that this can be abused for political reasons. For example, should the authorities wish to generate more positive cases, the cycle threshold would be at the higher end. But then, should authorities wish to have less positive cases (for example, if they wish to prove that a vaccine or other measures work), they can lower the cycle threshold. Unreliability of the Test The evidence is mounting against the reliability of the PCR test. Samples from Non-Human Sources Even in the early days of the pandemic, the Tanzanian President had the foresight to test samples of random things meaning that a goat, a sheep and a paw paw tested positive for Covid. https://guardian.ng/life/goat-sheep-and-paw-paw-test-positive-for-coronavirus-in-tanzania/ Many others have followed this idea and there are so many anecdotal reports of people testing dogs, puddles or not even swabbing at all and getting positive results – there are quite a few videos demonstrations of this. Also, there have been a number of reports of people abandoning the long queues at testing facilities but later receiving an alert that they had tested positive even when they have not even had the test. Re-Testing Cambridge University routinely test their students and then re-test the samples. In one week, the re-testing found that 100% of samples had been false positives. Authorities Admitting PCR Test Flaws More and more authorities are now starting to admit that there are issues with the test. The Portuguese Court has ruled that PCR is unreliable and it was therefore unlawful to quarantine people on the basis of the test. Despite the massive importance of this ruling, there has been silence from the UK mainstream media. https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/ There is a link to the full judgment translated to English here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30 According to this article below, apparently even the Australian government website admits that the tests are totally unreliable. https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/05/australian-govts-own-website-admits-covid-tests-are-totally-unreliable/ And even the WHO has been doing a U-turn on the reliability of the PCR test. https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/18/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives/ https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users Criticism of Professor Christian Drosten and the PCR Testing Protocol Scientific Dissent For a more scientific examination of the issues with the test, you may wish to look at the following report completed by 22 experts as an external peer review of the Corman-Drosten paper upon which the PCR testing protocol has been based. This report has identified 10 major flaws with the Corman-Drosten paper which was published within a day of submission (!) on 23rd January 2020. Professor Christian Drosten is a leading virologist in Germany and is the equivalent of Chris Whitty in the UK. He has advocated strongly for lockdown measures on the basis of supposed asymptomatic transmission of Covid. The 22 authors have called for the urgent withdrawal of the Corman-Drosten paper. http://tapnewswire.com/2020/12/global-team-of-experts-finds-10-fatal-flaws-in-the-pcr-demands-its-urgently-axed/ The full report is here: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ Legal Action in Germany Legal action is being taken against Prof Christian Drosten in Germany. Cease and desist papers have been issued against him recently and allegations of scientific fraud have been made in that he has been deliberately misleading politicians and the public. An unofficial English translation of the papers can be found here: https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Cease-and-desist-papers-Prof.-Dr.-Christian-Drosten-by-Dr.-Reiner-Fu%CC%88llmich-Unofficial-English-Translation.docx.pdf You may have gathered that I am very sceptical about the pandemic. The testing for the virus is crucial because it is the basis for case numbers, mortality rates and the need for lockdowns and other restrictive measures. If it is flawed (which I am in no doubt that it is), then the entire justification for restrictive measures collapses. Edited February 26, 2021 by Mitochondrial Eve 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.