April 14, 2021

from FuzzyDemocracy Website

translation by Paul Charles Gregory

extracted from 'Sensational judgment from Weimar - No masks, no distance, no more tests for students Report'

Original German version






Cannot Detect

Any Infection...!!!



On the subject of the PCR test, the Family Court of Weimar writes:

"The expert 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. Ulrike 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

  • secondly, can 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 just one.


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.

Using three 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 citizens.

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 cultivation.


Yet the RT-qPCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, which was propagated worldwide with the help of the WHO, was (and following it, all other tests based on it as a blueprint) set at 45 cycles without defining a Ct-value for "positive".

In addition, when using the RT-q-PCR test, the WHO Information 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 as positive.


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, reproducible virus.

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 conditions.

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 symptoms.

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 witness.


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 possible.

In any case, the term "incidence" is misused by the Land executive.


"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, that lockdowns have no significant benefit.