August 8, 2020 | from Covid19 News on Planet Waves
PCR is an amplification method. It amplifies the signal (its target) and the noise (anything in the background). As with amplification, turn it up high enough and the signal and the noise blend into one thing.
Dear Friend and Reader:
Since the beginning of the covid crisis, I have focused my energy on unraveling problems with the tests being used. This is a large and unwieldy topic, though there is historical precedent for the discussion, which I’ve documented in this article.
I have said before that the “case” count is being done improperly, against all guidelines, and is therefore grossly inflated. In order to maintain the illusion that there are currently 6,282,369 (as of this writing Saturday) currently infected patients, a tool called the polymerase chain reaction is being used — the PCR test. Any time you hear the word “test” without the word “antibodies,” this is what’s being referred to.
This is the machine that can create the mirage of an infectious disease outbreak without one single person being infected. I know this sounds ridiculous. It is ridiculous, and it’s also true. I am not saying that there’s not a disease outbreak happening right now. I’m not saying there is no SARS-CoV-2. I am saying we have no way of knowing that for sure based on the PCR test.
If you want news from an official source covering this issue, check this article from The New York Times, which we have verified personally. The quotes from epidemiologists are priceless, one after the next, and worrying that their warnings have been ignored.
Many Protocols, Many Possible Interference Sources
PCR is an amplification method. It amplifies the signal (its target) and the noise (anything in the background). As with amplification, turn it up high enough and the signal and the noise blend into one thing.
“The test” is one of many, many varieties PCR tests, which are being lumped together. There is no one protocol. Different labs in different jurisdictions used different methods and most significantly, leave the machine for different numbers of cycles, each of which doubles the amount of material that is measured.
Notably, this is not the actual virus in the machine. As we learned famously during the HIV crisis, the PCR test does not measure viral load. And even if it did, viral load, in turn, does not determine whether a person is sick or well.
The test does not find ANY virus at all. This is important to recognize. It is supposed to finds bits of evidence of DNA or RNA that supposedly show up in the genetic sequence of the virus.
But that leaves a lot of room for error. It’s kind of like searching a novel for a four-letter sequence of the alphabet and thinking you know how the story turns out. For example, someone whose immune system processed the virus five months ago can still test positive based on residue in their body, even though they have no infection. Our best discussion of this is from Prof. Beda Stadler (interview and transcript here).
The test might pick up any coronavirus (there are many) or according to one document we have, all Asian viruses. It could pick up viral remnants from a previous cold. It might pick up remnants of a previous successful bout between the immune system and covid. But as you will read, it can pick up nothing at all and call it a positive result.
Essentially the Gold Standard is the series of experiments that prove they are looking for the right thing, and they know how much of it causes disease. Without that, there is no foundation or baseline established to calibrate the test or its results upon.
The Lack of the Gold Standard
The first problem is that the PCR test has not been calibrated for the virus they are supposedly looking for. This is the Gold Standard. Essentially the Gold Standard is the series of experiments that prove they are looking for the right thing, and they know how much of it causes disease. Without that, there is no foundation or baseline established to calibrate the test or its results upon.
The PCR device is so sensitive that for important research, entire laboratories that have never had the substance being looked for must be used, to prevent the possibility of cross-contamination. The test is looking for molecular fragments that match the virus, not for viruses. Said another way, it is a chemical assay invented by a chemist — not a biological or medical test.
Today, hundreds of thousands of samples are being run through labs around the clock with no time to clean the facility. This all falls under the general heading quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). There must be negative and positive controls used to test the machine on a daily basis, or even several times a day. These labs are currently working like the Chinese sweatshops that are making masks.
Invented by a chemist named Kary Mullis in the early 1980s (for which he won the Nobel Prize), the PCR was never intended as a diagnostic tool (which is now it’s being used today). It was intended as a research tool.
FDA Admits the Problems With the Test
How do we know this? Well, everywhere but MSNBC. Let’s start with the FDA, which admits the problems in its updated emergency memo on the use of the test. This document is a grand tour of the sausage factory:
“Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”
That bears repeating: The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. They go on:
“Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.”
The reason that PCR is not a diagnosis is that it may not catch the thing that is actually causing the illness, such as a bacterium. That has to be diagnosed through other testing, which is rarely being done.
The FDA in this document leaves out the serious problem with false PCR positives from other coronaviruses such as the common cold, influenza viruses, and absolutely nothing at all causing a positive test result. But their comments leave room for the possibility. For example, someone who briefly had coronavirus four months ago may have residue of the virus but be non-infectious, pefectly healthy, and still test positive and be a confirmed case.
This is the central fraud: a positive PCR is called a “confirmed case” of Covid-19, even if the “patient” is perfectly healthy with no symptoms and is out climbing Mt. Everest.
Here are some prior articles if you are interested:
Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus? by Celia Farber, who was the first journalist to address this issue, with HIV in the 1990s.
Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests, by Jon Rappoport, who was the first writer to document this for the Covid campaign
Faulty COVID-19 tests: Why prisoners love their jailers and never-ending lockdowns
COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, a classic from Off-Guardian
PCR Tests are a Total Fraud, a new one from Dr. Serge Gregoire
Here is what can go wrong: the Dartmouth Incident, by Planet Waves
The Dartmouth incident problem was documented accurately by The New York Times. The quotes from epidemiologists are priceless, one after the next. We have verified this story ourselves (see link above).