September 8, 2020 | Written by John O’Sullivan | source
“Widespread reliance on the PCR for COVID19 testing is beyond stupid. It is criminal because it is pushed as justification for maintaining ‘lockdown’ measures and compounding the fear and misery (including economic) much of the world is still suffering as a consequence of this gigantic science fraud.”
“The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – used as the bellwether for coronavirus – is not fit for purpose. Herein, we summarize discredited COVID19 testing and encourage you to do your own research and become better informed as to how misdirection, incompetence and scientific fraud is gravely harming our personal and societal well being.
Nick Delgado wrote an excellent primer in April of how this COVID19 test is widely being used (and abused) and we incorporate some of his analysis herein. Despite problems known even then, the PCR test remains the most commonly used COVID-19 test both in the US and globally.
The PCR test was invented by Kary Mullis (photo, top) in 1985 but it was never intended for detecting disease; it’s primary applications included biomedical research and criminal forensics.
Before his death in 2019 Mullis told reporters:
““Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction
Mullis often spoke out against using his test for diagnosing illnesses. So-called experts ignored the warning. But now, many independent scientists and medical professionals are coming forward to denounce the idiocy of governments, the media and NGO’s for pushing the number of novel coronavirus “cases” (not deaths) premised on spurious results from this problematic PCR test.
Reporting on the original 1980’s great breakthrough of the Mullis Polymerase Chain Reaction innovation, the London Observer wrote:
“Not since James Watt walked across Glasgow Green in 1765 and realized that the secondary steam condenser would transform steam power, an inspiration that set loose the industrial revolution, has a single, momentous idea been so well recorded in time and place.”….
Other than Delgado’s excellent introductory article, we recommend reading August 16, 2020) analysis citing recent evidence exposing the fallacies around COVID testing. who offers a more up to date (
Weisbecker poses the key question we should ask ourselves:
“What do we mean when we say somebody has ‘tested positive’ for the Corona Virus?
We’ve been hijacked by our technologies, but left illiterate about what they actually mean. In this case, I am in the rare position of having known, spent time with, and interviewed the inventor of the method used in the presently available Covid-19 tests, which is called PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction.)”
Mullis and others correctly called out the idiocy of groupthink – the reliance on ill-informed and misguided ‘experts’ who direct government health policy. A key culprit among prominent world bodies is the World Health Organization (WHO) loudly telling is to “test, test, test!”
WHO head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and his co-conspirators pushing the new dystopian plan for a ‘Great Reset’ know full well the more you test, the more positive cases will emerge and the more their insane over reaction to the ‘crisis’ becomes validated. But dissenters are wise to this scam. Here is a typical comment from one the thousands of experts dissenting from the accepted narrative:
“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine,” warns Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer.
As Delgado’s research discovered:
“The PCR test is so well known for giving inaccurate results that the CDC warns not to give the test to asymptomatic persons “because of the increased likelihood of false-positive results.” In fact, there is a famous Chinese paper that stated if you’re testing asymptomatic people with PCR, up to 80% of positives could be false positives.
But the numbers aren’t just skewed by false positives, they are also skewed by how many people are offered the test and what condition they are in. For example, during the first few weeks of the ‘pandemic’ tests were scarce. As they became more widely available of course the number of infections accounted for increased as well, and false-positive results further increased those numbers.”
Widespread reliance on the PCR for COVID19 testing is beyond stupid. It is criminal because it is pushed as justification for maintaining ‘lockdown’ measures and compounding the fear and misery (including economic) much of the world is still suffering as a consequence of this gigantic science fraud.
To better appreciate the insanity that has befallen us let’s review a little of the history of the PCR test to see how we sank into this nonsensical unscientific morass. Canadian researcher David Crowe, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast had this to say on the testing insanity:
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.
In the early 1990’s, PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction) came into popular use, and Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 1993. PCR, simply put, is a thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, making it large enough to study. As it correctly says on PCR’s Wikipedia page, PCR is an “…indispensable technique” with a “broad variety” of applications, “…including biomedical research and criminal forensics.” [Italics mine.] The page goes on to say, to my [Mullis, the inventor of the test] dismay, that one of the applications of PCR is “…for the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”…
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.” [emphasis added]
“That’s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You “have it” or you don’t.”
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great… This is where it gets wild.
“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.””
The fact is a vast majority of people infected with COVID-19 have mild symptoms and it’s estimated that 50% of people infected are asymptomatic.
Many of the people who allegedly died from COVID-19 were already very sick and would have died anyway in a short period of time. The scientific data made available to the public proves that around 95 percent of deaths were patients were over 80 years of age with two or more comorbidities (such as cancer).
Social media, mainstream scientific journals (owned by self-serving corporations) and the biased national press that makes money from selling bad news so are very much’ in’ on ensuring you and I do not get to see the evidence contradicting the accepted ‘doom and gloom’ pandemic narrative.
An important Chinese research paper that exposed that around 80 percent of PCR test positives could be false positives was quietly withdrawn by PubMed. Though only the abstract is still online even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available.””