PCR: A DNA test becomes an instrument for manipulation

Translated by Corona Investigative
August 02, 2020

After we have shown in our previous article that the PCR test is not validated (1), we will take the last breath of the PCR test in this article. We show that the PCR test, even if validated, is not able to detect a virus. The PCR test is one of several pillars that all collapse like a house of cards if you look closer. A further finding is the fact that so far no scientific publication has complied with Koch’s postulates on SARS-CoV-2 (gold standard for the detection of a pathogen), which alone means that there is no evidence of a pandemic. Nevertheless, I would like to explain to you in more detail why this PCR test is nothing more than a manipulation tool, because already at this point we can nip this plan-demic in the bud. (2)

The PCR test is not binary!
An important information is that the PCR test is not a binary test, it is not comparable to a pregnancy test that tells you whether you are pregnant or not. So it does not give a clear yes/no result!                                                                                                     What they do is, they take a kind of continuum and arbitrarily say that this point is the difference between positive and negative.

The PCR is a production technique!
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplifies a DNA section contained in a sample, i.e. a part of the DNA sequence. Since the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not have any DNA – it is a so-called RNA virus – the RNA is converted into a DNA via an upstream step (reverse transcription/RT). The SARS-CoV-2 test is therefore an RT-PCR test. One starts with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA, and every cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like much, but if you double it 30 times, you get about a billion times more material than at the beginning. So as a manufacturing technique it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they are making it. They emit a light with one wavelength and you get a response, you get light back with another wavelength. So they measure the amount of light that comes back and that is their surrogate (replacement maker) for how much DNA is present.

To use the PCR as a test, they assume that they start with an unknown number of strands and end with an exponential multiple after n cycles. The initial quantity can be estimated from the quantity of material in scheduling. A major problem is that, since the PCR is an exponential (doubling) process, the errors also grow exponentially.        In short, starting from one strand of DNA, the strand is split (divided into two parts) and then complementary strands can grow, the same process that occurs in a cell during mitosis (cell division).

The set cycles decide on a positive or negative result
Unfortunately, there is no calibration for the PCR test, not only are there different PCR tests that are set for different sequence sections of the claimed SARS-CoV-2, but also each laboratory can set an arbitrary cut-off (threshold). And here it gets wild!

“In one paper,” “I found 37 cycles as a cut-off” Young BE et al. Epidemiological Features and Clinical Course of Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA. 2020 Mar 3. (3)

If you did not get enough fluorescence (4) in 37 cycles, you are considered negative. If the fluorescence was obtained under 37 cycles, you will be considered positive.

In another paper the cut-off was 36 cycles. 37 to 40 were considered “undetermined”. This means that if within 36 cycles sufficient fluorescence, virtually enough material was doubled, one was considered positive, while over 40 cycles were considered negative. If indeterminate, further tests were performed. Li Q. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 29.  (5)

It is therefore quite possible that different hospitals, different states, Canada vs. the USA, Italy vs. France all use different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So if you cut off at 20 cycles, they would all be negative. If you score at 50, maybe they’re all positive. At 36 cycles, you’ve already doubled the material to almost 70 billion.

Excerpt from an interview with David Crowe: “I think if a country said, ‘You know, we have to stop this epidemic,’ they could quietly send around a memo saying, ‘We shouldn’t set the cut-off at 37 cycles, if we set it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If that’s still not enough, they could set it at 30 or 28 cycles or something like that. That way you can control the sensitivity.” (6)

Yes, you read that correctly. Labs can manipulate how many “cases” of Covid-19 your country has. Is that how the Chinese made their case load suddenly disappear?

Read more