PCR Test, Gold Standard

Introduction

In this report, we will dig into the PCR test that they claim is the gold standard and used to drive policy in the US and world.

According to Dr. Pascal Sacré, the test is not reliable as it produces simplistic answers, allowing governments to manipulate results to manage what people think and believe. It’s to instill fear for political gain, to deceive the people into giving up their rights.

The way the PCR test works, it collects cell samples from the back of the nose, hence the long swabs.  They then search the samples (your DNA) for the SARS-COV-2 virus by amplifying the gathered cells to identify the person as positive or negative for COVID-19.

An important note is this test is highly complicated and subject to a collection of missteps. Yet, we are told this is the gold standard? [1]

PCR Test Results (False Positives & Negatives)

And as we dig further into PCR, the issue with this test is emerging to the forefront.  Even the CDC has come out with guidelines on how to interrupt the results. A Gold Standard test now needs interpretations of its results.  

On the Whitehouse website, their guidance states for all COVID test that “if you test positive you Most likely* have an active COVID-19 infection. [2]

And what does the asterisk mean with the word likely?

“No test is ever perfect. All tests occasionally result in false-positive results…”

And if we look at the CDC website on antibody testing, what do they say a positive test means?

“A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold. [3]

It means you can have a common cold. With that said, in an article dated May 2020 [4], it states how growing concerns are over the accuracy of the test.

Quote:

“First, you should know that a true positive result means that the test did find what it was looking for. For example, if you get tested for flu, a true positive result means that the test detected the presence of genetic material from the flu virus. On the other hand, a true false result means that no genetic material from the flu was detected.”

But the trouble with tests (PCR) is that you can’t be sure what you are getting is a true positive or true negative. You have to rely on probabilities.”

And secondly:

“A false positive means that the test shows a positive result, but in reality it should be a negative result. This means that a patient may be told that they have COVID-19, but they actually do not.”

“A false negative means that the test shows a negative result, but it should have been a positive result. This means that the patient may be told they don’t have COVID-19, but they actually are infected.”

And as sated earlier, they contribute some reason for these fraudulent results to samples contaminated with the virus and, or, human error [5].

 “Coronavirus Cases Up The report showed that Orlando Health had a 98 percent positivity rate. However, when FOX 35 News contacted the hospital, they confirmed errors in the report. Orlando Health’s positivity rate is only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as in the report.”

With all that stated, what does Dr. Kary Mullins say about the PCR test he created [6],

“Kary Mullis…  With regard to the viral-load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: ‘Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.’ PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.”

In other words, when he stated, “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.” He’s saying the PCR test can’t be used to define how much of the virus is in the body. The test is pretty much meaningless for COVID results; its primary purpose is its ability to lock you down and strip away your liberties and freedoms.  

Let that sink in.

Don’t use PCR for COV

As we continue, what else Dr. Mullis have to say on the topic [7],

“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment.”

And when Dr. David Rasnick, a biochemist, was asked about the test and process he expressed the following,

“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it…”

“You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms … the dead cells are generating the symptoms.” [7]

They then asked about his advice on whether one should take the test. He replied,

Don’t do it… No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable.”

Now, why would this doctor state this test would devastate your life?

Quote,

“Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us, they’re not just looking for the virus.”

And one last take away from Dr. Rasnick is, 

PCR for diagnosis is a big problem,” he continues. “When you have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it’s going to generate massive amounts of false positives. Again, I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true.”

And in another article, it reaffirms what Dr. Rasnick said without realizing it. They concluded, “PCR tests specific for COVID-19 are possible because the viral sequence was shared globally via a public database.” [8]

So, as stated by the inventor and many other experts, once the DNA is collected and replicated millions of times, lab technicians check the results against a shared global public database such as the REDCap [9] database.

REDCap: Global Surveillance

REDCap is a globally distributed database used today by over 4,300 active partners in 137 countries, including the CDC and WHO.  It’s used for the tracking and support of COVID-19 test results and individuals.

In April, ApiJet Systems Corp. was awarded a $138M DoD contract to provide 100 [10] million pre-filled syringes for distribution across the United States by the end of 2020 via project Jumpstart.

These syringes have an optional RFID tag and GPS-based location tracking option, a.k.a. Contact Tracing. The data is submitted to a global data store for real-time injection mapping and monitoring, thanks to big-tech companies such as Apple and Google [11].

And to make everyone feel more confident, they claim this is for their citizens’ safety as it allows their governments to defend them against pandemics and improve global access to essential medicines (vaccines).

References

1.        Wyllie, A. L. et al. Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs. medRxiv 2020.04.16.20067835 (2020) doi:10.1101/2020.04.16.20067835.

2.        Interpreting COVID-19 Test Results. Whitehouse 1.

3.        CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Testing. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html (2020).

4.        Chia-Yi Hou. False positive and false negative coronavirus test results explained. TheHill https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/496651-false-positive-and-false-negative-coronavirus (2020).

5.        Tyler Durden. Florida Labs Acknowledge ‘Major Errors’ After Reporting Positivity Rates Of 100%. Zero Hedge https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/several-florida-labs-report-positivity-rates-100 (2020).

6.        The Ebola Test’s Inventor Says The Test Is Unreliable. Transmissions http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-ebola-tests-inventor-says-the-test-is-unreliable/ (2014).

7.        Farber, C. Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus? UncoverDC https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/ (2020).

8.        PCR testing inventor speaks to WGN amid COVID-19 pandemic. WGN-TV https://wgntv.com/news/coronavirus/pcr-testing-inventor-speaks-to-wgn-amid-covid-19-pandemic/ (2020).

9.        REDCap. REDCap https://projectredcap.org/.

10.      $138M DOD Contract: ApiJect Will Supply Prefilled Coronavirus Syringes with RFID GPS Tracking and Confirmation. USAHITMAN Conspiracy News https://usahitman.com/apiject-rfid-covid/ (2020).

11.      Gurman, M. Apple, Google Bring Covid-19 Contact-Tracing to 3 Billion People. Bloomberg.com (2020).

PCR Test, Gold Standard by K. Saitta
© 2007-2020 Walk In Verse All rights reserved

Share This

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on pinterest

Get News & Updates

RecommendedReads

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top