Latest News

The PCR Scam: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Governments worldwide have used the PCR as a tool to enable “cases” of a “novel” virus to be created. These “cases” have successfully incited fear resulting in malleable populations ready to accept any rule, restriction, or intervention proposed to them in order to limit these cases and protect them from a virus.

Yet the PCR does not detect the SARS—COV-2 virus and positive test results are simply not cases. The realisation of this fact should have stopped all belief and discussion related to the “pandemic” hoax, from variants to vaccines.

The article below has been authored by a Biomedical Scientist explains how the PCR scam commenced and why the PCR is “scientifically worthless.”

The PCR Scam: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2.- By a Biomedical Scientist

On January 23, 2020, the scientific journal Eurosurveillance, published a study by Dr. Christian Drosten et al claiming to have developed the first test for detecting infection with a novel coronavirus first identified just days before in the Chinese city of Wuhan. Drosten is the German governments’ chief scientific advisor for covid, Germany’s de facto “Anthony Fauci”. The Drosten paper was titled, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”.

This paper was immediately endorsed by the corrupt Director General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom, the first non-medical doctor to head the WHO. Since then, the Drosten test for the “virus” (Real-Time-Polymerase Chain Reaction or RT-PCR test) has spread via the WHO worldwide as the most used test protocol to determine if a person might have covid-19, the alleged illness caused by the alleged virus SARS-CoV2.

When this paper was written there was a total of just 6 deaths attributed to the Wuhan “coronavirus” in the whole world. Why did Drosten et al assume a major challenge for public health laboratories when there was no evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was going to become a widespread pandemic?

On November 27, 2020, a group of international virologists, microbiologists, and other scientists published an appeal for Eurosurveillance to retract the Drosten paper. This appeal is a damning external peer review, from twenty-three leading scientists, including scientists who have patents related to PCR, DNA isolation, sequencing, and a former Pfizer chief scientist. To date Eurosurveillance has refused to retract this paper and has issued an unsatisfactory non-explanation for not doing so.

Drosten et al have serious conflicts of interest which initially were not mentioned. Two of the authors of the paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. Another author Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol, and Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol.

TIB-Molbiol was the first company to produce PCR kits based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten paper, they distributed these PCR test kits before the publication was even submitted. Victor Corman and Christian Drosten failed to mention their affiliation with the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both authors are responsible for viral diagnostics at this laboratory and the company operates in the field of RT-PCR testing.

The very short time span between submission of the manuscript and acceptance for publication (24 hours) indicates that a systematic peer review process was either not performed or was of poor quality. The subsequent analysis of the original paper constitutes a genuine peer review and accuses Drosten et al of scientific incompetence, identifying at least ten different fatal flaws in their test protocol.

An accurate test for a “virus” isn’t possible without first knowing the components of the virus you want to detect and these components can’t be known without having isolated/purified that virus beforehand. The authors of several articles that supposedly describe the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 have admitted when specifically asked that they have not purified the “virus” The virus was not isolated in the true dictionary or true scientific sense of the word. Virologists have disingenuously redefined this word.

Detractors often claim that it is impossible to really isolate a virus because they have to be cultured in cells. That is simply not true. Biologists who study viruses that infect bacterial cells (bacteriophages) routinely isolate those viruses in the true sense of the word. Why can’t virologists studying “viruses” they claim cause human disease use the same techniques?

Facebook “fact checkers” refute the claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been purified by referring to one study in which better purification than usual was achieved using a sucrose density centrifugation step:

“A preparation of a virus can’t get much more ‘purified’ than this.”

It is not good enough to perform proper purification just to obtain some nice pictures (cryo-electron tomography)of what you assume to be a virus. This purification should be standard procedure for all researchers for all their experiments. This is especially true when it comes to genomic sequencing (the basis for the PCR test), protein antigen determination (the basis for lateral flow tests), and virulence studies (the basis for draconian social measures). Unfortunately, this is not standard procedure in the world of virology.

The identification of unknown pathogens using molecular genetic tools alone is impossible because the target sequence is not known, and so PCR-specific initiators (primers) cannot be properly designed. The supposed novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 “genome” is based on in silico (theoretical computer generated) sequences, uploaded by a laboratory in China and not on isolated SARS-CoV-2 particles.

There has been much speculation about gain of function research outsourced to the Chinese, but this ignores the fact that there is no highly virulent viral pandemic. It was not necessary to release a real pathogen in order to impose draconian social measures, all that was necessary was to upload a genetic sequence of dubious origin to the internet.

What was considered to be viral RNA was extracted from complex mixtures without any proof that the RNA belongs to a virus. “Scientists” then speculate about mutations, recombinations, genotypes, molecular evolution, strains, new variants, and other jargon that conveys the false idea that a “virus” is being studied.

Restriction enzymes are added that cut the nucleic acid molecules at certain locations and always by the same length for a given sequence. If many fragments of genetic sequence of the same or very similar size are generated it is assumed to belong to a virus rather than the host genome which it is assumed would generate random cuts and fragments of variable size.

This unscientific assumption does not take into account that there are “virus-like particles”, “retrovirus-like particles”, “endogenous retroviruses”, “exosomes”, “extracellular” particles and mitochondrial DNA that can produce many copies of the same sequence. There are numerous types of particle that possess the same characteristics as “viruses” and so can produce large numbers of identical copies when cut by enzymes.

Computer programs are used that make predictions on how genetic sequences should be combined. The sequences are manually assembled and edited to produce a final sequence of the “viral genome”.

The genetic sequences used in PCR tests to supposedly specifically detect SARS-CoV-2 are present in dozens of sequences in the human genome and in the genomes of about a hundred microbes. The RT-PCR does not detect the so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus, but rather fragments of human RNA and those of numerous microbes. These fragments are likely to be present in respiratory samples taken from healthy people.

Jesus Garcia Blanca used the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST), a sequence alignment search tool that allows a given sequence to be compared with all known sequences stored in the NIH databases (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to investigate the specificity of the SARS-CoV2 PCR tests.

This is an essential step routinely performed by any competent scientist when designing a PCR test. This ensures that the test is specific and does not generate false positive results due to cross-reaction with other sequences that might also be present in the samples being tested.

Garcia Blanca discovered that one PCR primer that is supposed to be specific to SARS-CoV-2 actually corresponds to 74 fragments of the human genome and a hundred microbial fragments as well.

This is shocking but unsurprising because the now notorious Cormen-Drosten PCR paper formed the basis for these tests and was plagued by poor primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-PCR protocol, and no proper test validation.

The test and the manuscript fail to meet the standards for an acceptable scientific publication. The scientific inadequacies, errors, flaws, major scientific and methodological problems invalidate both the paper and the test responsible for locking down the world.

Drosten et al provided confusing unspecified primer and probe sequences which is very unusual. Six unspecified positions could easily result in the design of several different alternative primer sequences which do not detect the supposed SARS-CoV-2 sequence. These unspecified positions should have been designed unambiguously.

The paper also failed to define what constitutes a positive or negative test result. An SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) should include a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. Above 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives are to be expected. Drosten et al and the WHO recommended 45 cycles. A PCR result using 45 cycles is scientifically and diagnostically meaningless. If a maximum of 35 cycles was specified, the number of “coronavirus” positives would be less than 3% of the reported number.

The Corman-Drosten paper describes 3 primer pairs, but these primers only cover roughly half of the “viral genome” rather than spanning the entire “genome”. This is another factor that decreases specificity for detection of supposed intact virus RNA and increases the chances of false positive test results. The positioning of the targets in the region of the viral genome that is most heavily and variably transcribed is another weakness of the protocol.

These primer design errors are inexcusable as there are software packages available to help design RT-PCR tests that work correctly. All a scientist has to do is copy and paste the target sequence into the software and the software will come up with a list of suggested primer and probe combinations. The software calculates all of the relevant parameters to ensure that the PCR will work properly without producing spurious results.

Considering the serious design errors, the amplified PCR products could be anything (and probably are) which perhaps explains why proper validation of positive results was not done in the Cormen-Drosten paper. The PCR products resulting from the Drosten method have not been validated at the molecular level which is another major error in the protocol. The PCR product should be run on a gel to ensure it is the expected size and this product should be sequenced to confirm its exact identity.

No clear SOP was provided to unequivocally specify the relevant parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the exact same test conditions. A validated universal SOP is essential, because it enables the comparison of data within and between countries. It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. Laboratories are therefore free to perform the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation.

Dr Stephen Bustin, one of the world’s leading experts on PCR, says that under certain conditions anyone can test positive. He considers both the arbitrariness of establishing criteria for results and the choice of the number of cycles to be nonsense because they can lead to anyone testing positive.

An appeals court in Lisbon, Portugal ruled on 11 November 2020 that the Drosten PCR test endorsed by the WHO is not valid to detect coronavirus infection and that it is no basis to order nationwide or partial lockdowns. This ruling should obviously apply to all nations.

“Doctor” Christian Drosten and officials at Frankfurt’s Goethe University, where he claims to have received his medical doctorate in 2003, are accused of degree fraud. Drosten will now probably face court charges for holding a fraudulent doctoral title. That should be the least of his worries.

The PCR test is scientifically worthless and all “positive” results obtained should be invalidated. Widespread use of this completely inaccurate test has resulted in global lockdowns as well as economic and social catastrophe.

References

1 Victor M Corman,Christian Drosten et al “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”, Eurosurveillance, 25/3 (23 Jan 2020).

2 Borger et al. (2020) 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. ICSLS

3 Response to retraction request and allegations of misconduct and scientific flaws. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041

4 The scam has been confirmed: PCR does not detect SARS-CoV-2, but endogenous gene sequences. Jesus Garcia Blanca. https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/19/the-scam-has-been-confirmed-pcr-does-not-detect-sars-cov-2-but-endogenous-gene-sequences/

5 Coronavirus Scandal Breaking in Merkel’s Germany. F. William Engdahl. 10 December 2020. http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO10Dec2020.php

Share this page to Telegram

Categories: Latest News

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback
2 months ago

[…] !! The PCR Scam: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2.   BY PATRICIA […]

GeoffB
GeoffB
2 months ago

Oh dear she’s done it again with another ridiculous article.

It is claimed that the PCR test gives many false positives.

If this was the case they would show up in countries like New Zealand and Australia who did lots of PCR testing but NO positives (false or otherwise).
That is because the SARS-CoV-2 virus wasn’t there then. If the PCR test was producing many false positives and detecting the common cold or flu viruses by mistake it would have shown up. There wasn’t any.

Similarly here in the UK during the summer of 2021 there was very few positive results because the virus had subsided. If the accused faulty PCR test with its so-called inbuilt “false positive” design was real they would have shown up. They didn’t which goes to prove that the PCR test is highly specific and accurate (when done properly).

There was a letter to The Lancet from a statistician (not a scientist or medic) which suggested that labs are only testing for one gene and not the two or more as recommended by the WHO and the PCR test was detecting flu and common cold viruses by mistake.

That may well be the case in a few instances but poor Quality Control and poor practices by a few labs does not negate the specificity and accuracy of PCR tests which have been regarded as a vital detection tool by scientists since 1985.

Very early on in the so-called “pandemic” Corman-Drosten identified the gene sequence of SARS-CoV-2 with the help of computer generation to complete the sequence as they were trying to publish it as quickly as possible to give the world an accurate PCR test.

They came up with the unique partial sequence of FAM-CCAGGTGGWACRTCATCMGGTGATGC-BBQ.
SARS-CoV-2 and it’s variants have 29,903 base pairs which have been laboriously whole gene sequenced (it takes 4 to 5 days and NOT computer generated) and uploaded to the GISAID Initiative over 7 million times. This has shown that the original computer enhanced gene sequence by Corman-Drosten was correct.

What scientists have always known is that the PCR can test for a virus with high accuracy but it cannot ascertain whether the virus is dead or alive and infectious or not. The CT rate is an indication (low rate probably infectious <25, high rate>25 probably not). Only cell culture can confirm infectiousness.

The PCR test works in Real Time and stops when it goes positive.
If it’s positive after 15 cycles it stops at 15 cycles.

In the UK the vast majority of positives are well before 35 cycles and rarely goes anywhere near 45 cycles.

The PCR test is highly accurate at detecting a fragment of the gene sequence SARS-CoV-2 “ONLY IF” the testing lab has scrupulous controls to stop contamination resulting in false positives. The lab is highly incompetent if they produce many false negatives.

What it doesn’t detect is if the virus is viable or not (ie is the person infectious) and that can only be done in a wet lab and cell culture.

It has never been shown to test positive for other coronaviruses or inanimate objects in a scientific test, it is only hearsay. The PCR test is very, very specific in what it tests for.

The amplification or CT rate stops immediately when a positive result is achieved.
They may be designated to go up to 45 amplifications but taking the UK Coronavirus (Covid-19) Infection Survey 2020 Table 6a (they stopped showing the CT rates after this) as an example the vast, vast majority of positive results are achieved before 35 amplifications and there are NO positive results after 37 amplifications.

There were 309,607 participants in the survey over the last 6 weeks of December 2020 which is a good sample rate for accurate estimates across the country.

The mean average is a CT rate of no more than 28.4 and the highest 34.7 with the lowest at 15.1. The figures show that potentially 60% of UK cases are not infectious.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata

It is governments who decide not to differentiate between the infectious and the possibly 60% who are not infectious in the UK (85% to 90% in the US). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

It is not a fault with the PCR test or most scientists. The scientists advising governments are the ones who are at fault.

If the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is done properly it cannot pick up the cold and flu viruses which have a similar but different gene sequence.

It can pick up the SARS-CoV-2 virus 12 weeks later NOT a year later.

People have misread the CDC announcement that they are replacing the current PCR tests with a different PCR test where they are asking labs to have an assay to detect both SARS-CoV-2 virus AND the flu virus.
This is purely to save time by using one test for both and not two separate tests.

PCR tests are a highly accurate and specific lab tool used since 1985 invented two years earlier by the late great Kary Mullis who is often misquoted or quoted out of context. Kary Mullis is not going to rubbish his own test for which he received the Nobel prize.

The mass testing Lighthouse labs have poor Quality Control and produce many false positives.

Governments are mass testing for SARS-CoV-2 which in the vast majority of instances is a virus producing no or mild symptoms to inflate the numbers and fear.

If they stopped mass testing the perceived problem would be relegated to an endemic virus the same as colds and flu.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

Oh dear he has done it again. More ridiculous comments by someone who has never done a PCR in his life and doesnt understand the basic principles.

I have designed, optimised and performed countless RT-PCR tests. The Drosten PCR is not fit for purpose, contains numerous design flaws and apparently wasnt checked for specificity using BLAST searches.

You say: “The PCR test works in Real Time and stops when it goes positive. If it’s positive after 15 cycles it stops at 15 cycles.” That statement is absolute nonsense. The results are plotted in real time on a computer screen but the PCR completes the number of cycles in the program regardless of positive or negative results. If the machine is programmed to do 45 cycles it will complete all 45 cycles.

Everything else you say is equally ignorant and if i could be bothered i would prove you wrong on all of those points too. You have no idea what you are talking about.

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Sam
2 months ago

Oh dear.

Sam who thinks he knows about science is talking rubbish again.

RT-PCR stands for Reverse Transcription or Real Time. Once they go positive there is no need to go any further.
What’s the point of doing 45 cycles when it was recorded as positive at 15.

The original Corman-Drosten paper was soon updated and amended even before any criticism to perfect the PCR test. Other countries including the US also produced their own PCR test protocols independent of Corman and Drosten.

I think Sam must be this so-called “Biomedical Scientist” who has authored this rubbish article.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

Total rubbish as usual. The RT-PCR is run in batches of at least 96 samples per run. A run is not stopped on the basis of a positive result. The program is completed regardless of results.

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Sam
2 months ago

You’re talking about mass testing.
I’m talking about the principle of a single test.
Either way it is the same result.
If there is a positive result at 15 cycles it doesn’t matter if the machine then goes all the way through to 45 cycles the test is basically over at 15 cycles because the positive result will be recorded as 15 cycles.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

Wrong as usual because you have never done RT-PCR and dont understand it. The Ct Isnt determined until the run has been completed. This can only be set by manually altering the x axis of the amplication plot graph. The test isnt over until the full number of cycles has been completed. I thought you understood “modern virology”.

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Sam
2 months ago

You and other critics of the PCR test are fixated by the 45 CT rate amplification where they think it will find anything at such a high rate.

I have clearly shown that regardless of whether it is designated to go up to 45 or even 100 the vast majority of positive results are well below 35.

If it’s positive at 15 cycles it doesn’t matter if the machine goes all the way to 45 or even 100.

The mean average is a CT rate of no more than 28.4 and the highest 34.7 with the lowest at 15.1.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

Totally pointless argument. Again.

First: where is your virus to compare what was found to that? How it was proven to cause the illness?

Second: What is the explanation for digging it almost to your brain and deep in your throat + RUBBING? (we had to wear masks because – they said we were so full of viruses – we had to protect others).
Even cat’s genetic test doesn’t requires such an invasive way to have sample.

PCR is not a testing tool during the covid scam. PCR is a DELIVERY TOOL.

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

“…In a CDC document titled, “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 2020 Interim Case Definition, Approved April 5, 2020,” [1] under the section, “Laboratory Criteria,” we have this:
“Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ribonucleic acid (SARS-CoV-2 RNA) in a clinical or autopsy specimen using a molecular amplification test.”
The test referred to is the PCR. And as you can plainly see, it is detecting, not the virus itself, but a piece of RNA.
A piece of RNA ASSUMED to come from the virus, SARS-CoV-2.
I say ASSUMED because, where is the actual virus? Where is the virus isolated from all surrounding material?
If you don’t have an isolated specimen of the virus, you can’t say, with any degree of certainty at all, that you have a piece of it (the RNA)….”

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/09/14/in-case-you-thought-the-pcr-test-detects-an-actual-virus-wrong/

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  GundelP
2 months ago

Jon Rappoport, like you, hasn’t a clue about modern virology.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

You havent got a clue about modern virology. Scientism not science.

GeoffB
GeoffB
2 months ago

The original Corman-Drosten et al PCR test paper had been criticized by some people. “A consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper’s methodology.”
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

On February 4, 2021, Eurosurveillance (who first published the paper) published its long-awaited response to the Corman-Drosten Review Report, after a two-month period of review by five external experts.

Within one week of the receipt of the Report, and after a discussion with the editorial board members, it was decided that scientific misconduct or conflicts of interest were a non-issue.

They were also happy with the peer review.
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041

The Review Report and the Addendum on the Borger-Kämmerer team against the Corman-Drosten et al paper was criticised by people like Prof. Andreas Beyer who states ….

“The Borger-Kämmerer text is pseudoscience, it is full of misconceptions, errors and flaws. Therefore it is ignored by experts for good reason. The impact it had in public consciousness, however, is fatal. Borger reported on Twitter more than 30 Million views of his “Report” (March 2021) [now 50 million]. Hence I ask all colleagues please to spread this essay for at least a little bit of counterbalance.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351286220_Borger_Kammerer_Corona_qPCR_Pseudoscience_Conspiracy_Theory_Revisited_-_an_Analytical_Essay_-

Nothing has been heard from these so-called “life scientists” since 27th November 2020 after their complaints were totally rejected.

Dez
Dez
2 months ago

Kerry Mullis told us that using the PCR test to detect any illness was fraudulent, that it was never designed for that purpose – he invented the PCR test process.

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Dez
2 months ago

Scientists have always known that it can’t tell if anyone is infectious or not but it is very specific and accurate at detecting viruses.

Kary Mullis was not going to rubbish his PCR test for which he won the Nobel prize.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

The Drosten PCR is not at all specific. The primers bind to multiple microbial and human sequences. Absolute rubbish.

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

Again, attacking the person when you fail to argue properly.

Where is the PCR to detect the Yawn virus?
(You know, you start to yawn in a room and others start to yawn, too).
The Laugh virus?
The Menstrual Cycle virus?

You just copy-paste ‘sounds scientifically’ arguments as it fits you but you fail every time to give common sense explanations for generic questions. And you will fail again…

The knowledge you – your ‘group’ – try to hide so badly is out with the Montaigner experiment. I saw you pretended not to see it.

Your viruses are not material things but certain frequencies, the so called viral infections (unless they were caused by poisoning) in fact transmissions of a certain frequency belonging to a certain code / condition / material.

Even Montaigner is not scientific enough to you or what? Here comes his proof.

Last edited 2 months ago by GundelP
GundelP
GundelP
2 months ago

Countries bought Covid-19 test kits as early as 2017, the transactions went via the world bank if I recall well. It was a huge scandal, there were many articles about it in the alternative media including screenshots of the transactions,

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GundelP
2 months ago

proof 1
silview.media /2020/09/07/world-bank-says-covid-19-test-kits-are-being-sold-since-2017/

wb-covid-2.jpg
GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GundelP
2 months ago

Proof 2

image.png
GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GundelP
2 months ago

proof 3 (proof 1 and 3 belong together, the item number description is in the 3.)

wb-covid-1.jpg
Dash
Dash
2 months ago

This article, although its author may have good intention and he/she does include many of the important points, is still confusing/misleading.

– There is NO “sars-cov-2” “virus” truly isolated/purified from a patient, shown to exist, and shown to cause “illness” (and the supposed “covid-19” “illness” (which has no “new”/distinguishing “symptom”/”presentation”)).

– No other so-called “virus” (meaning, “infectious”, pathogenic particle that chases you around, gets in your cells, multiplies, blows them up, and makes you ill) has ever been shown to exist either.

– And PCR is NOT a test, and it can NOT be used as a diagnostic tool. PCR is a DNA manufacturing technique. It does not look for things, it does not search for whole genomes, it doesn’t come back positive or negative, it can not tell you what it “found” and where the “match” it “found” comes from, and even if there were to be a particle “found”, PCR could NOT tell you what that particle is and/or what it can do and whether it harms you or not (and it could also not tell you how much of it you would have).
And all of these “PCR “tests”” are essentially “PCR-based “protocols””, which in fact is “protocols” that are essentially totally based on PCR, and all the “results” are then “INTERPRETED”/”INFERRED” at will. So they are not tests, and they could never be tests.

There is no “virus” and there is no “test”.

And there is no “new””covid-19” “illness”.

End of story, plain and simple.

trackback
2 months ago

[…] 24. Februar 2022 The Expose: The PCR Scam: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2. […]

trackback
2 months ago

[…] The PCR Scam: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2. […]

A Person
A Person
2 months ago

Who needs a PCR test anyway when u can just ask if the patient has a loss of taste of smell? I imagine that would be a more accurate indicator of coronavirus (or 5G poisoning 🙂 ) than the PCR test, that could be registering positive scores due to colds and flus.

“And the symptoms that I found unusual where the loss of smell and taste, which doesn’t routinely occur with respiratory viruses, and of course, the breathlessness that people were presenting with. And this breathlessness was a very sudden onset, required ventilation very quickly. So, the dyspnoea and the loss of smell and taste became my diagnostic tool to confirm whether a patient actually had a coronavirus infection or not…I didn’t want to rely on this PCR test…I took the opportunity to test a few and only those that had loss of smell and taste, and I found them to be positive. So, I had confirmed that a loss of smell and taste was a symptom of coronavirus infection. And so, I didn’t feel the need to test every patient.” – Dr. Shankara Chetty.

Of course, I haven’t a clue about modern virology myself. But since all these more learned commenters are getting accused of that same thing, I’m feeling rather well educated at the moment 😉 .