“…these (PCR) tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all.“
In September 2020, The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) had the following to say about the PCR test currently viewed as the “gold standard” for SARS-CoV-2 testing and being utilized all around the world:
“PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear.
During our Open Evidence Review of oral-fecal transmission of Covid-19, we noticed how few studies had attempted or reported culturing live SARS-CoV-2 virus from human samples.”
Though they offer a somewhat tempered critique, it is indeed quite evident from examining the key literature that the virus has simply not been isolated and purified, despite numerous—yet hollow—claims to the contrary. So what are they testing for, exactly? The CEBM investigated how the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test reflects infectivity with the purported SARS-CoV-2 virus. They concluded:
“These studies provided limited data of variable quality that PCR results per se are unlikely to predict viral culture from human samples. Insufficient attention may have been paid how PCR results relate to disease. The relation with infectiousness is unclear and more data are needed on this.”
The figure below, provided by the CEBM, indicates that no live virus was detected with a symptom-to-test delay of more than 8 days. This is a huge red flag with regards to the purported “infectiousness” of COVID-19; after all, if no live virus was detected beyond 8 days, where exactly did the supposedly deadly, sophisticated, and replicating “infectious” virus go? The CEBM’s investigation raises many alarming questions about the rationale behind the use of the PCR test kit.
The CEBM further warned that “PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” This is precisely what we are seeing happen all around the world—countless millions, if not billions of people are still being locked down due to a faulty RT-PCR test kit that is evidently inconclusive in detecting the supposedly “novel” coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.
The ineffectiveness of the RT-PCR test kit is simply not debatable, which basically makes the widespread lockdowns and restrictions entirely unwarranted, not to mention unnecessarily draconian. In September 2020, CNN described how UK students were being locked down in university dorms as a result of COVID-19 “positive” test results with this faulty test kit. This is an incredible sham affecting college students all over the world—not to mention other large segments of the world’s population.
A journal article in The Lancet analyzes the shedding and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2. The authors examine another study conducted by Fei Zhou and colleagues in Wuhan, China, also published in The Lancet. They noted the following:
“We were surprised to note the absence of viral load data in this study. Although the use of sensitive PCR methods offers value from a diagnostic viewpoint, caution is required when applying such data to assess the duration of viral shedding and infection potential because PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid.”
Here we have yet more indication that PCR is incapable of detecting SARS-CoV-2, due to its inability to distinguish an infectious virus from non-infectious nucleic acid. In fact, even Kary B. Mullis—the inventor of PCR technology himself—indicated that it was inappropriate for the detection of an infectious virus. Mullis was awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his invention of PCR, which became popular in the early 1990s (particularly in the “diagnosis” of HIV).
In a 1992 interview with Spin magazine, Mullis stated the following regarding the use of PCR in detecting HIV:
“PCR made it easier to see that certain people are infected with HIV and some of those people came down with symptoms of AIDS. But that doesn’t begin even to answer the question, ‘Does HIV cause it?'”
Mullis, who was a huge critic of Dr. Anthony Fauci—indicating that “he doesn’t know anything really about anything”—died in August 2019. The timing of his death just prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic is incredibly suspicious, and it should certainly raise more than a few eyebrows. Nevertheless, it’s a shame that Mullis isn’t alive today to continue offering his invaluable critique on the widespread usage of PCR tests throughout the COVID-19 scamdemic—er, pandemic—as it could have opened many people’s eyes to the fraudulent nature of the COVID-19 testing.
In the following video, Mullis explains about PCR, “It is just a process that is used to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing ended up with really was gonna hurt you or anything like that.”
A fantastic article by OffGuardian from June 2020, aptly titled “COVID-19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless,” also explored the issue of PCR testing and how they are simply unfit for the purpose of diagnosing a SARS-CoV-2 infection. OffGuardian states the following:
“…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.”
PCR tests utilize something known as a “cycle quantification” (Cq) factor, which “specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.” Many PCR tests use a Cq of over 35, and some are even above 45. A Cq value above 40 implies a low efficiency, according to the “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments” (MIQE) guidelines, which define the minimum information required to evaluate RT-PCR results.
OffGuardian also notes that there are no distinctive symptoms of COVID-19, which means that it shares symptoms with a variety of other illnesses, including the flu and pneumonia. Nevertheless, the fact that the inefficacy of PCR was known nearly three decades ago (and admitted by its very own creator) raises even more questions about why such widespread and improper use of PCR continues to this day. Until these questions are answered, draconian lockdowns and other repressive measures that are not based on sound science need to be eliminated.