JustPaste.it

PCR "Method" Falsely Used to Diagnose Covid-19 "Cases"

Permalink:  https://bit.ly/2EUEwTj

 

karymullisanswersquestion.jpg

Video Interview - Click Here

________________________________________________________________

The PCR Hoax Exposed by Inventor, Kary Mullis

Question to Kary Mullis:  How do they misuse PCR to estimate all these supposed free viral RNA's that may or may not be there?

Kary Mullis response:  "It doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that."

________________________________________________________________

Aug, 2020 - Reiner Fuellmich explains the goal of the German Corona Committee

ENGLISH, GERMAN AND FRENCH

reinerfuellmichepicdeclaration.jpg

We want to investigate why the federal and state governments have imposed unprecedented restrictions and what consequences they had for people. We support scientific studies in this field.

________________________________________________________________

 

CDC Document Confirms PCR has no value at detecting Covid-19 infection

CDC Admits the PCR Test Will Test Positive with Cold of Flu Virus "

The highlighted limitations below are evidence that the CDC is fully aware that PCR is not capable of diagnosing an infectious coronavirus.

 

CDC Document dated 07/13/2020

CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)  Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel

CDC-006-00019, Revision: 05 CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases Effective: 07/13/2020

Document Link PDF:   http://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download 

 

pcrtestlimitationsnew.jpg

CDC Document dated 07/13/2020

CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)  Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel

CDC-006-00019, Revision: 05 CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases Effective: 07/13/2020

Document Link PDF:   http://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download 

Limitations Page 39

  • All users, analysts, and any person reporting diagnostic results should be trained to perform this procedure by a competent instructor. They should demonstrate their ability to perform the test and interpret the results prior to performing the assay independently.
  • Performance of the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has only been established in upper and lower respiratory specimens (such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs, sputum, lower respiratory tract aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, and nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate).
  • Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Optimum specimen types and timing for peak viral levels during infections caused by 2019-nCoV have not been determined. Collection of multiple specimens (types and time points) from the same patient may be necessary to detect the virus.
  • A false-negative result may occur if a specimen is improperly collected, transported or handled. False-negative results may also occur if amplification inhibitors are present in the specimen or if inadequate numbers of organisms are present in the specimen.
  • Positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on prevalence. False-negative test results are more likely when prevalence of disease is high. False-positive test results are more likely when prevalence is moderate to low.
  • Do not use any reagent past the expiration date.
  • If the virus mutates in the rRT-PCR target region, 2019-nCoV may not be detected or may be detected less predictably. Inhibitors or other types of interference may produce a false-negative result. An interference study evaluating the effect of common cold medications was not performed.
  • Test performance can be affected because the epidemiology and clinical spectrum of infection caused by 2019-nCoV is not fully known. For example, clinicians and laboratories may not know the optimum types of specimens to collect, and, during the course of infection, when these specimens are most likely to contain levels of viral RNA that can be readily detected.

Limitations Page 40

  • Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
  • The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
  • The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
  • This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

 

Kary Mullis Website

 

Before he died, Dr. Kary Mullis warned that his PCR invention would not be a valid tool for medical diagnostics. This is why we need to keep exposing the science fraud of using PCR as a CV19 diagnostic test.  

 

PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction)  is only a replicating device that multiplies fragments of RNA from whatever source is inserted into the machine by lab personnel.  If the source is not certified as the confirmed causative agent, the PCR device will replicate an unknown RNA fragment. But in the case of this false pandemic, any scrap of RNA, from any random source that can be detected, could be falsely reported as positive for CV19.

 

Since CV19 was never isolated and purified under the scientific rigors of Koch's Postulates, the PCR device can only be replicating fragments of RNA from other sources including the common cold, a vaccine, a Flu virus or some other stray source, including contaminated test kits like those that were recalled in April. (WebMD)

Big Pharma charlatans get away with using PCR to report fake CV19 diagnostics because a public in panic by media-driven fear will not have enough confidence to understand microbiology basics well enough to figure it out for themselves -  even with guidance from non-pharma connected whistleblowers like Dr. Buttar, Dr. O'Shea, Dr. Kaufman and PCR inventor, himself, Dr. Kary Mullis. 

 

WHY NO FDA APPROVAL for PCR IN 35 YEARS?

.

On 2/4/2020 the FDA Issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for rt-PCR to be used as a tool to diagnose Covid-19

.

PCR has never received FDA approval for diagnosis of any coronavirus.  Formal approval for a medical testing device can take years.   PCR was only given emergency authorization because corrupt influencers claimed it "may" help. 

.

Kary Mullis, PhD, invented PCR in 1985.  Curious skeptics should want to know why PCR has failed to attain full FDA approval as a diagnostic test for coronavirus in the 35 years since it was created.  With no FDA approval the PCR method suddenly received a rushed "emergency authorization" to mis-diagnose CV19. 

( Spoiler ...Because it would never pass scientific scrutiny or a peer review process if results were published).

 

So, PCR  is science quackery used to report a false CV19 diagnosis.  Labs corrupted by profit motive can easily manipulate the number of replication cycles to report false CV19 positives to be used as media fear-porn.

 .

PCR results are not "binary " (either on or off/ yes or no) as the public has been mind-washed to believe.  If the replications are reduced from 40 to 35 it's likely that 60% of the positives could disappear with a sample so small as not to be detected.   But since reporting negatives is far less profitable, labs will adopt a standard for PCR cycles up to 37 or 40 in order to cash-in.

.

A New York Times article partially debunked PCR but only on how labs are increasing the number of cycles in order to collect bounty on positive tests -- tests that are wrongly labeled as "cases" in the absence of clinical symptoms and diagnosis. Advocates who promote fake PCR are using the opportunity to do more frequent testing at lower sensitivity in order to identify who's "really" infected while showing no symptoms.

.

Listen to this ambitious career-climber, Dr. Michael Lauzardo - UF Health Assistant Prof., Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine admitting that testing needs to ramp up while we wait for the Bill Gates approved vaccine that won't be safe to inject until 2022 when necessary clinical trials are completed and published.  Lauzardo made these apparently media-coordinated recommendations on 8/26 - days ahead of the NYT article where similar, aggressive testing recommendations were made. (Video)

drmichaellauzardoufhealthcovid19.jpg

 .So, let's take the word of recently and conveniently deceased inventor, Dr. Kary Mullis who pushed back against seeing his PCR device wrongly used as a fake diagnostic test even before the false pandemic of 2020.

______________________________________________________________

.

PCR TESTS ARE SCIENTIFICALLY MEANINGLESS  (Bulgarian Pathology Association)

 

"The separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.

.

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.

.

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

.

But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification”

.____________________________________________

 

If a PCR test for Covid-19 is NEGATIVE at 39 cycles it can be manipulated

to report POSITIVE if the test is increased to 40 cycles or higher.

"So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”

-- David Crowe– Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics

.

HOW TO CREATE A FAKE 2ND WAVE BY INCREASING PCR TEST SENSITIVITY

 

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless - Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose.


The test is a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR).  But the test can be easily manipulated by increasing or reducing the number of chain reaction cycles.

 

The virus can be made to go away (test negative) by reducing the number of chain reaction amplification cycles. The test can also be manipulated to show false positives by increasing the number of  cycles.

 

The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, warned:  "If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”  Source : PCR Handbook https://bit.ly/2ZPNI3r

 

The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called “the bible of qPCR.”  In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false “positive” results).”

https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

____________________________________________


How is the COVID-19 Virus Detected using RT-PCR?

How does RT–PCR work with the COVID-19 virus?

 

A sample is collected from the parts of the body where the COVID-19 virus gathers, such as a person’s nose or throat. The sample is treated with several chemical solutions that remove substances such as proteins and fats and that extract only the RNA present in the sample. This extracted RNA is a mix of the person’s own genetic material and, if present, the virus’s RNA.

 

The RNA is reverse transcribed to DNA using a specific enzyme. Scientists then add additional short fragments of DNA that are complementary to specific parts of the transcribed viral DNA. If the virus is present in a sample, these fragments attach themselves to target sections of the viral DNA. Some of the added genetic fragments are used for building DNA strands during amplification, while the others are used for building the DNA and adding marker labels to the strands, which are then used to detect the virus.

 

The mixture is then placed in an RT–PCR machine. The machine cycles through temperatures that heat and cool the mixture to trigger specific chemical reactions that create new, identical copies of the target sections of viral DNA. The cycle is repeated over and over to continue copying the target sections of viral DNA. Each cycle doubles the previous number: two copies become four, four copies become eight, and so on. A standard RT–PCR set-up usually goes through 35 cycles, which means that, by the end of the process, around 35 billion new copies of the sections of viral DNA are created from each strand of the virus present in the sample.

 

As new copies of the viral DNA sections are built, the marker labels attach to the DNA strands and then release a fluorescent dye, which is measured by the machine’s computer and presented on the screen. The computer tracks the amount of fluorescence in the sample after each cycle. When a certain level of fluorescence is surpassed, this confirms that the virus is present. Scientists also monitor how many cycles it takes to reach this level in order to estimate the severity of the infection: the fewer the cycles, the more severe the viral infection is.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/how-is-the-covid-19-virus-detected-using-real-time-rt-pcr

____________________________________________



The Corona Simulation Machine

Why the Inventor of The “Corona Test” Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus.

 

“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction.

 

“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is.

 

I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”

 

This is where it gets wild.

 

“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test.

 

"So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”

David Crowe– Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/