Aletho News


Scientists find most PCR test results don’t indicate infectious virus, question test’s status as “Gold Standard”

By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics •  June 20, 2021

How often do we hear that the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test is the “gold standard” for detecting COVID-19 infection and thus for controlling and containing a COVID-19 epidemic? To question the accuracy of this test is supposedly part of the “misinformation” sceptics spread, which Ofcom, being guided by biased, Big Tech-funded, activist organisation Full Fact, aims to suppress.

In reality, serious questions about the proper use of PCR tests, particularly in mass screening programmes, have been asked since the technique was invented in 1985 and predate the Covid pandemic.

Since early 2020, there have been concerns that defining a “case” of COVID-19 merely in terms of a positive PCR test – with no consideration of clinical symptoms or the cycle threshold (Ct) of the test, which indicates the viral load of the patient – debases the concept of a clinical case and exaggerates the prevalence of the disease, fuelling alarm.

The issue was raised by Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina and colleagues in the Lancet in February 2021, where they concluded that the cycle thresholds in reported test data were such that only a quarter to a half of positive PCR tests were likely to indicate the presence of infectious COVID-19. The rest, they argued, were detecting post-infectious viral particles, meaning relying on PCR testing was overstating the number of infectious cases of COVID-19 by a factor of between two and four.

This conclusion has now been underlined in a research letter in the Journal of Infection by seven scientists from the Universities of Münster and Essen. After analysing the test results from a large laboratory in Münster that amounted to 80% of all Covid PCR tests in the Münster region during March to November 2020, they found that “more than half of individuals with positive PCR test results are unlikely to have been infectious”. They thus conclude: “RT-PCR test positivity should not be taken as an accurate measure of infectious SARS-CoV-2 incidence.”

They also note that asymptomatic positives have higher average Ct values than symptomatic positives, meaning lower viral load and so less likely to be infectious.

Asymptomatic individuals with positive RT-PCR test results have higher Ct values and a lower probability of being infectious than symptomatic individuals with positive results.

This isn’t to say that PCR tests are of no use in diagnosing COVID-19. PCR amplifies tiny amounts of genetic material until it can be detected, and can certainly be used to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2. However, some doubt the validity of the PCR test protocols for COVID-19 and so question whether it is even detecting a real virus. However, since a large proportion of samples are currently being genetically sequenced to determine which variant they are, there can be no serious doubt that a real virus with known genetic structure is being detected in the tests.

When viral incidence is low or declining, that’s when the PCR test becomes much less reliable and tends greatly to overstate the prevalence of the disease (by two to four times, according to Michael Mina) and misdiagnoses people as being sick or infectious. When levels are surging and there is more infectious virus around it is much more likely to be accurate, at least in terms of indicating infectiousness, though questions about the proper use of the term “case” where no or mild symptoms are present remain.

June 21, 2021 - Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science |


    Noble Prize Winner

    Much like of the current orgiastic hysteria and institutional fiasco related to the COVID19, the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis also owes scientifically valid and objective evidence to the world to justify what the AIDS establishment is doing for the last three decades. And much like the coronavirus scam, the HIV-AIDS dogma maintained by the same cancer/disease industry hiding under the guise of public health and treatment, which fundamentally stands on the century old bogus “germ theory”, is also being endlessly questioned and strongly criticized by thousands of experts in the fields of virology, science, and medicine for its inconsistent, constantly changing characteristics and definition.

    Unfortunately, most people still refuse to get At Home STD Test to protect their health, that’s why up until now no one can stop this dangerous hoax from destroying lives across the globe; especially in the unsuspecting developing world even though this claim (that HIV causes AIDS) has never been proven.

    One of the most respected scientists who questioned the HIV-AIDS hypothesis even until his death is Dr. Kary Mullis, a biochemist PhD. who won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1993 for inventing the PCR (polymerase chain reaction), the basis for the HIV viral load tests. Mullis died last year and until his end, he stood firm on his disagreement on using his invention to diagnose people of having infected with a “disease-causing-virus” such as HIV, COVID19, etc. As a scientist who worked on the subject matter himself, Mullis has been haunted by endless questions that have never been answered (or can’t be answered) by the very same establishment that perpetuates this dogma. And lastly, much like the coronavirus fraud, this “deadly virus” delusion has been generated by billion-dollar funding coming from same mafia themselves, the biggest pharmaceutical companies that are offering the so-called cure.

    Based on his interviews, media appearances, and works in general, you can intuitively sense that Dr. Kary Mullis is a genuine person; he is sincere and compassionate who possesses a profound sense of empathy and regard to human life or value. He is a type of scientist which no one can buy or bribe; having a strong passion for scientific truth, ethics, and integrity, upholding these as the main principles and priority. Along with other experts and health professionals, he spoke strongly against the use of AZT and other kinds of destructive drugs and methods wrongly believed by both the scientific/medical establishment and the general public to be the “solution”.
    To learn more about this subject and to understand how Dr. Kary Mullis sees the HIV-AIDS hypothesis and the way the medical establishment maintains its official narrative, here are some quotes from Dr. Mullis himself:

    “It’s not even probable, let alone scientifically proven, that HIV causes AIDS. If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There are no such documents.” – Spin Magazine, Vol. 10 No.4, 1994

    “The HIV-causes-AIDS theory is one hell of a mistake.” – Foreword, “Inventing the AIDS Virus”

    “Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo.” – “Dancing Naked in the Mind Field,” 1998

    “Where is the research that says HIV is the cause of AIDS? There are 10,000 people in the world now who specialize in HIV. None has any interest in the possibility HIV doesn’t cause AIDS because if it doesn’t, their expertise is useless.”

    “People keep asking me, ‘You mean you don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS?’ And I say, ‘Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant! I have no scientific evidence for it.’ I might believe in God, and He could have told me in a dream that HIV causes AIDS. But I wouldn’t stand up in front of scientists and say, ‘I believe HIV causes AIDS because God told me.’ I’d say, ‘I have papers here in hand and experiments that have been done that can be demonstrated to others.’ It’s not what somebody believes, it’s experimental proof that counts. And those guys don’t have that.” – California Monthly, Sept 1994

    “If you think a virus is the cause of AIDS, do a control without it. To do a control is the first thing you teach undergraduates. But it hasn’t been done. The epidemiology of AIDS is a pile of anecdotal stories selected to the virus-AIDS hypothesis. People don’t bother to check the details of popular dogma or consensus views.” – HIV not Guilty, Oct 5, 1996

    “[Aids] is not ‘God’s wrath’ or any other absurdity. A segment of our society was experimenting with their lifestyle, and it didn’t work. They got sick. Another segment of our pluralistic society, call them doctor/scientist refugees from the failed War on Cancer, or just call them professional jackals, discovered that it did work. It worked for them. They are still making payments on their new BMWs out of your pocket.” – Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. Vintage Books. 2000

    “I think it’s simple logic. It doesn’t require that anyone have any specialized knowledge of the field. The fact is that if there were evidence that HIV causes AIDS-if anyone who was in fact a specialist in that area could write a review of the literature, in which a number of scientific studies were cited that either singly or as a group could support the hypothesis that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS-somebody would have written it. There’s no paper, nor is there a review mentioning a number of papers that all taken together would support that statement.”

    “Everyone in the field knows that there’s at least some dissension over whetr there’s evidence that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Is there somewhere in the literature that there is scientific evidence presented that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, and if there is, where is it? Who should be attributed with the scientific evidence supporting the statement, “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS?”

    “Because they’re working in a vacuum of, like, real scientists. There’s very few of what I regard as real scientists who’ve paid any interest at all to this field. The people who were recruited by the so-called war on AIDS were scientists who generally had nothing else better to do. There weren’t a lot of qualified people who were suddenly attracted to the field. There were simply a lot of people who had nothing else to get grants for, and they could get grants real easily for this one; they were by and large people who didn’t know very much about the disease, and didn’t care, but they did know how to deal with HIV. Because HIV was a fairly straightforward kind of thing for molecular biology to approach at the time, and microbiology was getting real easy, because you just buy a bunch of kits from suppliers of scientific stuff, you know, get a couple of technicians, and have them start doing assays that are just cookbook kinds of things.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Pip | June 21, 2021 | Reply

    • Thanks for that Pip, I did not realize the lack of evidence was so categorical.


      Comment by redracam | June 21, 2021 | Reply

  2. The statement that “PCR amplifies tiny amounts of genetic material until it can be detected, and can certainly be used to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2” is extremely misleading, and makes me wonder whether these ‘experts’ are not muddying the waters, just to cause more confusion. As Sars-Cov-2 has not been isolated, how can they tell whether the sample they have identified is actually a part of that virus? Of course they will say they have tested it genomically, but if you don’t have the real thing, how do you know if the genome is correct? Smoke and mirrors spring to mind.
    Just as a matter of interest, the Chinese called the virus they tested genomically in January 2020 ‘the Wuhan Seafood Market pneumonia virus’. A couple of days later the test, with an added protein, was renamed Sars-Cov-2. (MN908947-3). It seems strange that nobody since then has been able to verify or replicate what they did, and confirm that this is the virus. If it isn’t, what are they supposedly identifying with the PCR test? Most telling is that Portugal and Austria have rejected it, because it is not a diagnostic tool, and it tells you nothing about the health of the person being tested. It can only be concluded that it is being used as a weapon in the spread of fear and confusion.


    Comment by Bill Francis | June 21, 2021 | Reply

  3. It is funny that the PCR test inventor said it couldn’t be used to tell anything about Viruses


    Comment by wteach64 | June 22, 2021 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.