|
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such.
An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control 'pandemic'.
Regardless, those in charge need to be held accountable, which is precisely what the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss, 1 or ACU), 2,3 intends to do.
They're in the process of launching an international class-action lawsuit against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous 'pandemic' in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world.
I wrote about this in "Coronavirus Fraud Scandal - The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun" and "German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation."
FDA Demands Higher False Positives
An interesting case detailed in a January 21, 2021, Buzzfeed article 4 that raises those same questions in regard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is its recent spat with Curative, a California testing company that got its start in January 2020.
It has since risen to become one of the largest COVID-19 test providers in the U.S.
Curative's most popular PCR test differs from other providers in that it uses spit swabbed from the patient's tongue, cheek and mouth rather than from the back of the nasal cavity.
In April 2020, the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization 5 for the Curative spit test, but only for patients who had been symptomatic within the two weeks prior to taking the test, as the data available at that time showed it failed to catch asymptomatic "cases."
However, the test was subsequently used off-label on individuals without symptoms anyway, and the company has been urging the FDA to expand its authorization to include asymptomatic individuals based on newer data.
In December 2020, Curative submitted that data, 6 showing its oral spit test accurately identified about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT. 7
The FDA objected, saying that Curative was comparing its test against a PCR that had a CT that was too low, and would therefore produce too many false negatives. 8
According to the FDA, the bar Curative had chosen was "not appropriate and arbitrary," Buzzfeed reports. 9
This is a curious statement coming from the FDA, considering the scientific consensus on PCR tests is that anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable. 10,11,12
From the start, the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40. 13
This was already high enough to produce an inordinate number of false positives, thereby labeling healthy people as "COVID-19 cases," but when it comes to Curative's spit test, the FDA is demanding they compare it against PCR processed at a CT of 45, which is even more likely to produce false positives.
The FDA's concern is that Curative's test is missing infections and giving infectious people a clean bill of health.
However, in reality, it's far more likely that the test is accurately weeding out people who indeed are not infectious at all and rightly should be given a clean bill of health.
It seems the FDA is merely pushing for a process that will ensure a higher "caseload" to keep the illusion of widespread infection going...
When Are You Actually Infectious?
A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate.
In short, media and public health officials have conflated "cases" - positive tests - with the actual illness.
Medically speaking, a "case" refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, "case," has been arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA.
The research is unequivocal when it comes to who's infectious and who's not. You cannot infect another person unless you carry live virus, and you typically will not develop symptoms unless your viral load is high enough.
As it pertains to PCR testing, when excessively high CTs are used, even a minute viral load that is too low to cause symptoms can register as positive.
And, since the test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead viral debris, you may not even be carrying live virus at all.
These significant drawbacks are why PCR testing really only should be done on symptomatic patients, and why a positive test should be weighed as just one factor of diagnosis.
Symptoms must also be taken into account. If you have no symptoms, your chances of being infectious and spreading the infection to others is basically nil, as data 14 from 9,899,828 individuals have shown.
Of these, not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive.
This study even confirmed that even in cases where asymptomatic individuals had had an active infection, and had been carriers of live virus, the viral load had been too low for transmission.
As noted by the authors: 15
PCR Picks Up Dead Virus for Weeks After Infection Has Cleared
Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test ends up being important.
One example of this was presented in a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, 16 in which the author describes an investigation done on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Seoul, South Korea.
Whereas the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by cultured samples was just seven days, with the longest time frame being 12 days, the PCR test continued to pick up SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days.
The shortest time between symptom onset to a negative PCR test was 24 days.
In other words, there was no detectable live virus in patients after about seven days from onset of symptoms (at most 12 days). The PCR test, however, continued to register them as "positive" for SARS-CoV-2 for about 34 days.
The reason this matters is because if you have no live virus in your body, you are not infectious and pose no risk to others.
This then means that testing patients beyond, say, Day 12 to be safe, after symptom onset is pointless, as any positive result is likely to be false.
But there's more...
As noted in that New England Journal of Medicine article: 17
This suggests symptomology is a really important piece of the puzzle.
If no viable virus is detectable beyond Day 3 after your fever ends, it's probably unnecessary to retest beyond that point. A positive result beyond Day 3 after your fever breaks is, again, likely to be a false positive, as you have to have live virus in order to be infectious.
Even more important, these results reconfirm that CTs above 30 are inadvisable as they're highly likely to be wrong.
Here, they found the CT had to be below 28.4 in order for the positive test to correspond with live virus.
As noted by the authors: 18
Testing for Dead Viruses Will Ensure Everlasting Lockdowns
To circle back to the Curative PCR test, the company argues that the test is accurate when it comes to detecting active infection, and as CEO Fred Turner told Buzzfeed: 19
Again, this has to do with the fact that the Curative spit test has a sensitivity resembling that of a nasopharyngeal PCR set at a CT of 30.
The lower CT count narrows the pool of positive results to include primarily those with higher viral loads and those who are more likely to actually carry live virus. This is a good thing.
What the FDA wants Curative to do is to widen that net so that more noninfectious individuals can be labeled as a "case."
In an email to Buzzfeed, Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, stated that using a CT of 45 is "absolutely insane," because at that magnification, you may be looking at a single RNA molecule, whereas,
Mina added that such a sensitive PCR test,
While the FDA has issued a warning not to use the Curative spit test on asymptomatic people, Florida has dismissed the warning and will continue to use the test on symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals alike.
Only Miami-Dade County is reconsidering how it is using the test, although a definitive decision has yet to be announced. 22
The Lower the CT, the Greater the Accuracy
While the FDA claims high sensitivity (meaning higher CT) is required to ensure we don't end up with asymptomatic spreaders in our communities, as reviewed above, this risk is exceedingly small.
We really need to stop panicking about the possibility of healthy people killing others. It's not a sane trend, as detailed in "The World Is Suffering from Mass Delusional Psychosis."
According to an April 2020 study 23 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at just 17 cycles...
By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.
Similarly, a December 3, 2020, systematic review 24 published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, which assessed the findings of 29 different studies, found that,
In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus.
Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24.
In cases where a CT above 35 was used, the patient had to be symptomatic in order to obtain a live virus culture.
This again confirms that PCR with a CT over 35 really shouldn't be used on asymptomatic people, as any positive result is likely to be meaningless and simply force them into isolation for no reason.
PCR Testing Based on Erroneous Paper
In closing, the whole premise of PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19 is in serious question, as the practice appears to be based on an erroneous paper that didn't even undergo peer-review before being implemented worldwide.
November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review 25 challenging the scientific paper 26 on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman (the so-called "Corman-Drosten paper").
According to Reiner Fuellmich, 27 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned at the beginning of this article, Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 'pandemic' hoax.
The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to "fatal errors," 28 one of which is the fact that it was written, and the test itself developed, before any viral isolate was available.
The test is simply based on a partial genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020.
In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper's retraction, stated: 29
The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by the November 20, 2020, study 30 in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in any PCR-positive cases.
I referenced this study earlier, noting that not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive.
But that's not all...
After evaluating PCR testing data from 9,899,828 people, and conducting additional live cultures to check for active infections in those who tested positive, using a CT of 37 or lower, they were unable to detect live virus in any of them, which is a rather astonishing finding.
On the whole,
Its primary result is simply,
It's a delusional idea that is wreaking havoc on the global psyche, and it's time to put an end to this unhealthy, unscientific way of life...
Sources and References
|
