On the subject of
the PCR test, the Family
witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein has already pointed out in
her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic
material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses
that are capable of infection and thus capable of
replication (i.e. capable of reproduction)."
The expert witness
Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum.
Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony
on molecular biology, that a PCR test - even if it is carried
out correctly - cannot provide any information on whether a
person is infected with an active pathogen or not.
This is because the test cannot distinguish between "dead"
matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant
of the body's own immune system's fight against a cold or flu
(such genome fragments can still be found many months after the
immune system has "dealt with" the problem) and "living" matter,
i.e. a "fresh" virus capable of reproducing.
For example, PCR is also used in forensics to amplify residual
DNA from hair remains or other trace materials by means of PCR
in such a way that the genetic origin of a [putative]
perpetrator(s) can be identified ("genetic fingerprint").
Even if everything is done "correctly" when carrying out the PCR,
including all preparatory steps (PCR design and establishment,
sample collection, preparation and PCR performance), and the
test is positive, i.e.,
detects a genome sequence which may also
exist in one or even the specific "corona" virus sequence
(SARS-CoV-2), this does not mean, under any circumstances, that
the person who was tested positive is infected with a
replicating SARS-CoV-2 and is therefore infectious = dangerous
for other persons.
Rather, in order to determine an active infection with
SARS-CoV-2, further - indeed specific - diagnostic methods, such
as the isolation of replicable viruses, must be used.
Independent of the fact that, in principle, it is impossible to
detect an infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus using the PCR
test, the results of a PCR test, according to the expert witness
Prof. Dr. Kämmerer, depend on a number of parameters which,
firstly, cause considerable uncertainties
be manipulated in such a way that many or few
(apparently) positive results are obtained
Of these sources of error, two striking ones may be singled out.
One of these is the number of target genes to be tested. The WHO
guidelines reduced these from originally a sequence of three to
The expert witness calculated that the use of only one
target gene to be tested in a mixed population of 100,000 tests,
with not a single person actually infected, would result in a
count of 2,690 false positives:
this is based on a mean error
rate determined in an interlaboratory comparison.
target genes would result in only ten false positives.
If the 100,000 tests carried out were representative of 100,000
citizens of a city or district over a period of seven days, this
reduction in the number of target genes used would alone result
in a difference of 10 false positives compared to 2,690 false
positives in terms of the "daily incidence" and, depending on
this, the severity of the restrictions on the freedom of the
If the correct "target number" of three or even better (as e.g.
in Thailand) up to six genes had been consistently used for the
PCR analysis, the rate of positive tests and thus the "7-day
incidence" would have been reduced almost completely to zero.
Furthermore, the so-called
Ct-value, i.e. the number of
amplification/doubling steps up to which the test is still
considered "positive", is an additional source of error.
The expert witness points out that, according to unanimous
scientific opinion, all "positive" results that are only
detected from a Ct-value of 35 upwards have no scientific (i.e.
no evidence-based) foundation.
In the Ct range 26-35, the test
can only be considered positive if it is matched with virus
Yet the RT-qPCR test for the detection of
SARS-CoV-2, which was propagated worldwide with the help of
WHO, was (and following it, all other tests based on it as a
blueprint) set at 45 cycles without defining a Ct-value for
In addition, when using the RT-q-PCR test, the WHO
Notice for IVD Users 2020/05 must be observed (No. 12 of the
court's legal notes).
Accordingly, if the
test result does not correspond to the clinical findings about
an examined person, a new sample must be taken and a further
examination performed, as well as a differential diagnostic;
only then, according to these guidelines, can a test be counted
According to the
expert report, the rapid antigen tests used for mass testing
cannot provide any information on infectivity, as they can only
detect protein components without any connection to an intact,
In order to allow an estimation of the infectivity of the tested
persons, the positive test carried out in each case (similar to
the RT-qPCR) would have to be individually compared with the
cultivability of viruses from the test sample, which is
impossible under the extremely variable and unverifiable test
Finally, the expert witness points out that the low specificity
of the tests causes a high rate of false positive results, which
lead to unnecessary personnel (quarantine) and social (e.g.
schools closed, "outbreak reports") consequences until they turn
out to be false alarms.
The error, i.e. a high number of false
positives, is particularly high in tests on people who have no
It remains to be noted that, in principle, neither the PCR test
nor the antigen rapid test can detect an infection with the
SARS-CoV-2 virus, as has been demonstrated by the expert
Moreover, besides those described above, there are
other sources of error, which are listed in the expert opinion
as having serious effects, such that an adequate detection of
the infection with SARS-CoV-2 in [the Federal Constitutive
State, or Land, of] Thuringia (and nationwide) is not remotely
In any case, the term "incidence" is misused by the Land
"Incidence" actually means the occurrence of new
cases in a defined group of persons (repeatedly tested and, if
necessary, medically examined) in a defined period of time, cf.
No. 11 of the Legal Notes of the Court.
In fact, however,
undefined groups of people are tested in undefined periods of
time, so that what is passed off as "incidence" is merely
reporting data, pure & simple.
In any case, according to a meta-analysis study by medical
scientist and statistician John Ioannidis, one of the most cited
scientists worldwide, which was published in a WHO bulletin in
October 2020, the infection fatality rate is 0.23%,
which is no
higher than that of moderately severe influenza epidemics...
Ioannidis also concluded, in a study published in January 2021,
lockdowns have no significant benefit.