Nobel Prize Laureate Kary B. Mullis was the inventor of the* polymerase chain reaction technique (PCR), which is analyzed in this article.
Dr. Kary B. Mullis, who passed away on August 7, 2019 at age 74, stated emphatically that no infection or illness can be accurately diagnosed with the PCR-RT.
“PCR is a Process. It does not tell you that you are sick. …The measurement is not accurate”.
Mullis described the PCR-RT as a “technique” rather than “a test”.
It is a useful technique which allows for “rapid amplification of a small stretch of DNA”.
There is a sequence of outright lies and fabrications used to justify far-reaching policy decisions in the course of the last 20 months.
The biggest lie, which is firmly acknowledged both by scientific opinion and the WHO is that the RT-PCR test used to “detect” the spread of the virus (as well as the variants) is not only flawed but TOTALLY INVALID.
From the outset in January 2020, all far-reaching policy decisions upheld and presented to the public as a “means to saving lives” were based on flawed and invalid RT-PCR case positives.
These invalid Covid-19 “estimates” have been used to justify confinement, social distancing, the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings, cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, as well as the mRNA “vaccine” launched in November 202o.
The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the SARS-COV-2 virus, following the recommendations of a Virology research group (based at* Charité University Hospital, Berlin), supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (For Further details see the Drosten Study)
Exactly one year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. The retraction is carefully formulated. (See original WHO document here as well as in Annex)
While the WHO does not deny the validity of their misleading January 2020 guidelines, they nonetheless recommend “R e-testing” (which everybody knows is an impossibility).
The contentious issue pertains to the number of amplification threshold cycles (Ct). According to Pieter Borger, et al
The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)
The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.
If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), genetic segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 18 months are invalid.
According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al, the Ct > 35 has been the norm “in most laboratories in Europe & the US”.
The WHO’s Mea Culpa
Below is the WHO’s carefully formulated “Retraction”. The full text with link to the original document is in annex:
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. (emphasis added)
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept
This is not an issue of “Weak Positives” and “Risk of False Positive Increases”. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates.
What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting: “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”.
The WHO calls for “Retesting”, which is tantamount to “We Screwed Up”.
That recommendation is pro-forma. It won’t happen. Millions of people Worldwide have already been tested, starting in early February 2020. Nonetheless, we must conclude that unless retested, those estimates (according to the WHO) are invalid.
I should mention that there are several other related flaws regarding the PCR test which are not addressed in this article. (See Michel Chossudovsky’s E-book: The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset” (Chapter III)
From the outset, the PCR test has routinely been applied at a Ct amplification threshold of 35 or higher, following the January 2020 recommendations of the WHO. What this means is that the PCR methodology as applied Worldwide has in the course of the last 12-14 months led to the compilation of faulty and misleading Covid statistics.
And these are the statistics which are used to measure the progression of the so-called “pandemic”. Above an amplification cycle of 35 or higher, the test will not detect fragments of the virus**.** Therefore, the official “covid numbers” are meaningless.
It follows that there is no scientific basis for confirming the existence of a pandemic.
Which in turn means that the lockdown / economic measures which have resulted in social panic, mass poverty and unemployment (allegedly to curtail the spread of the virus) have no justification whatsoever.
According to scientific opinion:
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al, Critique of Drosten Study)
Continued at link.