As discussed in the previous post, the foundation of the use of PCR tests for diagnosis of SARS CoV-2 and determination of prevalence rates – the gold standard of viral isolation – has not adequately been undertaken. Ans ifven if the test could be considered reliable, there is also the issue of the number of amplifications run on a test.

“If you’ve been exposed to something that degrades your DNA, it will show up at a lower amplification cycle. And if you haven’t been degraded, you have to do more cycles. But the problem is if you do more than 35 cycles, pretty much everybody starts testing positive. And so in the hands of who’s ever interested in this, they can make more cases by turning up the number of amplification cycles. If you turn it up over 40, something like 60 to 80% of the population will have enough degradation that they’ll test positive. Suddenly you have a pandemic. And then if you roll out some therapy like a vaccine and you want to demonstrate that the vaccine reduced the number of cases, all you have to do is reduce the number of cycles and lo and behold, now only 10% show that they have this. This is a very powerful weapon in certain people’s hands.”

Dr Thomas Cowan

Amplification cycle threshold (CT) determines the rate of testing positive

Even medical professionals who are not critiquing the issue of isolation, share Drs Cowan and Bush’s concerns regarding the cycle threshold (ct) of amplification when doing a PCR test.

Dr Christiane Northrup, in Episode three of Vaccines Revealed, concurs: “[A]fter a magnification cycle of maybe 17, maybe 35, all it’s going to do is show you is dead pieces of nucleotides. And even Fauci said that. And in our state of Maine, they’re using a cut-off of 45.[…] [D]epending on how much of a case-demic you want […] you can just go up and down on your CT, your threshold that you cut it off at and then tell everybody, ‘The cases are up. The cases are up.’ If this isn’t the Wizard of Oz, I don’t know what it is. Pay no attention to the man behind the screen.”

Many laboratories will not disclose the number of cycles they are using as a threshold and in many cases the threshold is very high, which will inevitably lead to excessive false positives, which falsely inflates the numbers and fuels the notion of a pandemic. Also in Vaccines Revealed, Dr Zack Bush explains that governors in the US are realising that the stringent measures they have been forced to put in place in their states, have been based on an epidemic founded on the PCR tests. They have begun to demand that their laboratories disclose the threshold for amplification, which he thinks should be around five. However, he recounts, most laboratories are “doing 25 or even 40 amplifications for screening for PCR screening COVID tests.”

The UK Column news broadcast on 29 March references the Corman Drostan review (discussed in a previous blog post) and their paper, in which the reviewers also analyse the issue of ct and concur that results obtained after 30 or more cycles will throw up many false positives, but once you go up higher than 35 cycles, when you culture the positive results, the false positive rate shoots up to 97%. The UK Column got in touch with the UK Office of National Statistics to find out how many cycles they run and the response they received was that it was not possible to give out the information of any particular person’s PCR test because that was considered as personal data. I called Lancet Laboratories and another testing facility in South Africa, and was told that the ct was 40 or 50, depending on the make of the test they were running.

An October 2020 article by Iain Davis on the UK Column also examines issues with the testing.

Other issues regarding the PCR test

On 13 May 2020, 21st Century Wire published an article that very briefly summarises viral researcher David Crowe’s synthesis of the numerous flaws of PCR tests for COVID, including:

• “the arbitrary nature of test procedures and the ambiguous nature of test results
• documented cases in which test subjects alternately test positive, then negative, and then positive again on successive tests
• the inability of the test to prove that a virus is functional or even present
• the possibility of both false negative AND false positive results
• variability in test procedures (which sequence portions of the virus are being sought, etc) among dozens of different test kits
• the possibility of the ultra-sensitive tests being contaminated.”

There is also an audio interview with him about the tests (from around 01:02:00), and he also wrote a paper on the issues with the tests:

Dr. James Lyons-Weiler makes a similar point to Crowe, in Vaccines Revealed Episode 5, that even if one could be sure that a positive test was not a false positive it is still insufficient evidence that someone actually has the disease. Disease is determined by how your body responds to a virus or other pathogen.” He continues that on the other hand, “false negatives have become such an accepted narrative that people are deemed to have COVID if they have any respiratory symptoms but test negative. In fact, the list of possible COVID symptoms has continued to grow and contains most anything that would be associated with seasonal and respiratory illnesses.”

As charted above, it is not only doctors questioning the issue of isolation who are expressing grave concerns regarding the efficacy and reliability of the PCR test.

In addition, the use of a non-specific test with an acknowledged high false positive rate, has helped to create alarm due to the “asymptomatic spreader,” who is allegedly “fuelling” the “pandemic.” But Dr Rashid Buttar, among others, has debunked the myth that healthy, asymptomatic people are carriers, in Vaccines Revealed Episode 5. He reminds us that there is no chance of people transmitting the infection if they have no symptoms. He points out that the “premise behind infectious disease is, you get a symptom and then you are infectious, if you are not symptomatic then you are not infectious.” Also in Vaccines Revealed, Dr Kaufman concurs, pointing out “that there is no current science showing that healthy people are disease vectors, and that this truth carries over to COVID data sets. This is but one of the many aspects of accepted virology theory that has been turned on its head during the COVID-19 era.”