Test Explanation

The PCR Test

We are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic created by a scientifically meaningless PCR Test.
In mid-January 2020 a PCR (RT-PCR)diagnostic test protocol (“Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” )was created by Christian Drosten, Victor Corman et al in Germany. The publication was rushed through the process, published 24 hours after it was submitted to Eurosurveillance, because of this probably without any peer-review, was accepted one day later by the World Health Organisation and promoted around the world.
On Mar. 16, 2020, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a news conference in Geneva, Switzerland, “We have a simple message to all countries—test, test, test.” – and the WHO recommended exactly this PCR diagnostic test protocol published in the Corman-Drosten paper and first sold by TIB-Molbiol (CEO Olfert Landt),
In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication and identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.
Ever since February 2020 when the PCR diagnostic test protocol has been published and PCR Test Kits have been sold they have been used all around the world. They not only test people with symptoms but also the healthy “asymptomatic” population. In both cases these tests create false positive test results, which are declared “cases” and “infections”. The owner of the test kit producer Tib-Molbiol, acknowledged that ca. 50% of the results are not infections. Other experts talk about 90% false positives.
People are being tested when traveling, in schools, for work, in senior homes etc. or even just go voluntarily to get checked, sometimes multiple times in several weeks. If they die during the next 28 days after their last positive test result, “COVID-19” will be recorded as cause of death, even if the person died of pneunomia, old age, committed suicide or had a fatal car accident.
It is vital that this test, which is used worldwide, is not only examined by experienced scientists, but that the reviews of the test has to be retracted, and the implications taken into consideration by our politicians.
Since all our restrictions, our economies and all our lives on earth have been depending on these tests and test numbers an open discussion about it is important for our survival.

The PCR test protocol (polymerase chain reaction) has been used to run hundreds of millions of PCR tests across the world since last spring in 2020. Its positive test results have been the basis for all kind of restrictions all around the world ever since.
This PCR test protocol for SARS-CoV-2, which everyone in the world is now using, was developed in the lab of Prof. Christian Drosten in Berlin in mid January 2020. When they started working on the PCR test ca. towards the end of November 2019, the genetic material of the virus was not yet sequenced, so the test was designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV: “Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV”
The scientific paper in which the method was described was published two days after the manuscript was submitted in January 2020. There is concern that this article, which is the foundation most of our lives depend on, has not been peer-reviewed, since no peer review report has ever been released. It was approved in just one day, although it takes on average 179 days to peer review an article.
Olfert Landt, of Tib-Molbiol, the company that developed the PCR test being used, was also a co-author of the Drosten paper. “they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted”.
A very detailed dissection of the Drosten test protocol has been made by experienced and concerned molecular biologists. They discovered and published numerous technical weaknesses and serious flaws in their “Corman Drosten Review Report”. The PCR test with its extreme sensitivity was initially perfect to find out where the virus could be. But this test can not identify whether the virus is still alive, i.e. still infectous. If we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough to be detected. The WHO & Corman-Drosten protocol recommended a Ct of 45 cycles. Studies that conducted viral culture showed that with a PCR test Ct above 30, the tests were not detecting an infectious virus anymore and even Kary Mullins, the inventor who died 2019, always stated that everything above a CT of 35 cycles is meaningless. So everyone assumed that a positive test is true positive regardless of the CT cycles.
The E-gene used in the PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, is not specific to SARS-CoV-2 so it also could detect genetic material that doesn’t belong to SARS-CoV-2.
In April 2020 a laboratory in Augsburg, Germany wrote on their website that they always reported the PCR test results for both target sequences of the PCR (ORF1 and E-gene). The ORF1-gene is specific for SARS-CoV-2, whereas the E-gene is also present in other coronaviruses. Starting in April they would follow the WHO recommendation and report a result as “positive” when just the E-gene was amplified. But when only the E-gene is detected, it means there is no sign of SARS-CoV2. If the laboratory in Germany followed WHO recommendation it is fairly certain that many laborites around the world did the same, starting in April 2020.
In addition the test doesn’t have a Standard Operational Procedure. Since PCR tests can be done in any professional laboratory, there are no exact same test conditions and comparison of data is impossible. In an interview in January 2021 with the local newspaper Fuldaer Zeitung, Olfert Landt, of Tib-Molbiol, acknowledged that “About half of those infected with Corona would not be infectious”. Other scientists even think that 90% of positive tests might be false positives.
Due to these and other highly complex flaws the PCR test can produce a high amount of false positives and therefore is not a reliable way to determine the health status or infectiousness of citizens. In addition against all historical precedent and immunological reasoning, most countries launched mass testing their population and even healthy persons. The mass testing of the population and healthy people using the PCR method began to climb very steeply and with this of course generated a steady climbing number of “cases”. In contrast to past years, when healthy people were not tested with a flawed test, now the oftentimes false positives test results were declared “cases” although the persons were perfectly healthy. If someone of those positiv tested persons died within 28 days of a PCR test they have been listed as “COVID-19” death, even if killed in an accident.
Mass testing the healthy population with a PCR test which creates many false positives generates a “PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic”.
Please find the links and much more detailed explanations and information about the PCR test protocol (polymerase chain reaction) and why it generates false positives in the in-depth studies and research papers published by scientists and experts below and on the right hand side.

Corman Drosten Review Report
A global team of experts has found 10 FATAL FLAWS in the main test for Covid and is demanding it’s urgently axed.
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

“In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.”
– Corman Drosten Review Report

Retraction request letter to Eurosurveillance editorial board

Corman Drosten Addendum (11/1/2021)
The global team of scientists and experts wrote another 60 page dissection of the Drosten PCR protocol. Answering criticism of the initial retraction request not having enough “wet-lab” proof.
20 peer reviewed papers showing catastrophic problems.

“We believe the references provided in this addendum itemize the scientific consensus evident in the literature regarding the flaws in the original PCR detection method for SARs-CoV-2 published by Corman et al.. Further, since several important flaws were published in peer-reviewed journals, the lack of correction of the original PCR protocol by either Eurosurveillance or as an update in the Charité-WHO protocol brings into question the scientific integrity of the authors of Corman et al. These references settle any remaining debate that the Corman et al. manuscript should be retracted on technical grounds alone. The rapidity of the peer-review and conflicts of interest are even more troubling.”
– Corman Drosten Addendum

The PCR False Positive Pseudo-Epidemic
A “case” is a positive PCR test. No symptoms are involved. A “COVID-19 admission” to a hospital is a person testing positive by PCR before, on entry or at any time during a hospital stay, no matter the reason for the admission or the symptoms the patient is presenting. A “COVID-19 death” is any death within 28 days of a positive PCR test. If there is any doubt about the reliability of the PCR test, all of this falls away at a single stroke.
In summary, I argue that it is criminally dangerous to drive policy based in any way on this test (set up the way it is) and its results. No amount of argument or prevarication can alter these damning facts.
PCR-based COVID testing has failed and is not a proper basis to
lockdown the nation, let alone decide on tiers for restrictions

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swab test is useful (but not perfect) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA in symptomatic patients. However, problems arise using the test for purposes that disregard symptoms or time of infection—namely, case finding, mass screening, and disease surveillance.
This is because PCR is not a test of infectiousness.

In a statement released on December 14, 2020 the World Health Organization finally owned up to what 100,000’s of doctors and medical professionals have been saying for months: the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 is a hit and miss process with way too many false positives.

PCR “Pandemic”, Cycle Thresholds of 35+ = False Positives, Even Tony Fauci Says So!
with Emeritus Prof. Beda Stadler, Prof Carl Heneghan, Dr. Fauci, Kary Mullins, Professor Stephen A. Bustin

A brief history of the PCR fiasco of the Pandemic that can’t seem to end.

In November 2020 judges in Lisbon have described the reliability of tests being rolled out in their tens of thousands as “more than debatable”.
A 34-page ruling on an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four German tourists …leaves no doubt that a positive RT-PCR test cannot be taken on face value.

The 👆🏼 Portuguese judges cited the following study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists
Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates

“At a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remain positive in cell culture (i.e. were infected): in a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; in a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive and in a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in the culture”.
“This means that if a person has a positive PCR test at a threshold of cycles of 35 or higher (as happens in most laboratories in the USA and Europe), the chances of a person being infected is less than 3%. The probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”.

Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectious potential assessment – a systematic review
Those with high cycle threshold are unlikely to have infectious potential.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome
We investigated the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome and that transcription of the integrated sequences might account for PCR-positive tests.

The FDA did not regularly approve the PCR test, but approved it “For Emergency Use Only”.
“The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is only for use under a Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization. “
FDA also states:
“Positive results are indicative of active infection with
SARS-CoV-2 but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

In April 2020, a laboratory in Augsburg, Germany published the following information on their website:
“Modified reporting layout of SARS-Cov-2 PCR results.
From now on, we will only print the result as positive or negative on our findings.
Previously, you received two results depending on the test used.
If the sample was analyzed using the Roche method, we have reported the test results for both target sequences of the PCR (ORF1 and E gene) separately.
The ORF1 gene is specific for SARS-CoV-2, whereas the E gene is also present in other coronaviruses. The cases in which only the ORF gene was amplified, have also been positively assessed by us before. Few cases with isolated positive E gene were considered questionable and therefore repeatedly led to queries and problems regarding further management of affected patients. Taking into account the epidemiological situation and the overall increase in the positive rate, from now on we follow the WHO recommendation and report a result as “positive” when just the E gene has been amplified. Therefore, to simplify the findings, only one overall result (positive or negative) will appear in the future. A result is positive if at least one of the two target sequences of SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the swab material.
If the sample was analyzed using methods from rBiopharm or TibMolbiol, we have previously performed separate screening and confirmatory tests. Analogous to the approach described above, we restrict ourselves to the previous screening test targeting the E gene because of its high positive predictive value with increasing COVID-19 prevalence.”
End of Quote.
A day later, this notification was removed from the website.
Labor Augsburg

ITALY: CONFIRMED BY ITALIAN HEALTH SERVICE: False positives to Covid19 test as diagnosis are 95%. Legal cases started against testing under charges of fraud to procure public funding, false alarm, ideological false, and manslaughter.

Fauci knew that the PCR Tests is done by to high cycles above 35 (which are fake positives) in Juli 2020

Kary Mullins PCR Inventor:
“PCR is just a process..it does not tell you that you are sick.”
“With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”

Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures

Non-infectious/ Maybe infectious/ Infectious

Drosten Protocol paper
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR

WHO – Drosten Protocol
Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR

CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
For Emergency Use Only
Instructions for Use

Virology, transmission, and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2

  • Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests can detect viral SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the upper respiratory tract for a mean of 17 days; however, detection of viral RNA does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness

  • Symptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission (1-2 days before symptom onset), is likely to play a greater role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 than asymptomatic transmission

  • A wide range of virus-neutralising antibodies have been reported, and emerging evidence suggests that these may correlate with severity of illness but wane over time

  • Most clinical presentations are mild, and the typical pattern of covid-19 more resembles an influenza-like illness—which includes fever, cough, malaise, myalgia, headache, and taste and smell disturbance—rather than severe pneumonia

bioPerfectus technologies
COVID-19 Coronavirus Real Time PCR Kit
“Positive result suggests SARS-CoV-2 infection but bacteria and other virus induced co-infection could not be excluded. SARS-CoV-2 test result is not the only confirmation evidence of suspected cases and all positive results have to be reported to Centers for Disease Control (CDCs) and authorities.”

cobas® SARS-CoV-2 Test
Hoffmann-La Roche
– This test has not been FDA cleared or approved
– Clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.

Kary Mullins

– Kary Mullins

All information is deemed accurate but not guaranteed and should be independently verified.