australianvoice (australianvoice) wrote,
australianvoice
australianvoice

Covid-19 PRC Tests: When Is a Test Not a Test?

INTRODUCTION
All over the world people are being tested for Covid-19 using what is called the PRC test, Polymerase Chain Reaction. This test is very important because many countries have declared a Medical Emergency. In Australia the Biosecurity Act 2015 allows people to be detained or forced to seek treatment.(1) In the UK a person is “potentially infectious” at any time if the person is, or may be, infected with coronavirus, and there is a risk that the person might infect others. Under this law an official of the UK government has: "powers to direct or remove persons to a place suitable for screening and assessment" and "powers exercisable after assessment."(2)

All of these powers depend on the ability of a government to determine who is or may be infected with Covid-19, and the method used most often is the PCR test. Our media and all government representatives assume that this is a simple, straightforward test which can give reliable results. The purpose of this article is to explain how the PCR test is so flawed that both positive or negative results are virtually meaningless. We can begin by comparing the PCR test with a range of other tests used all over the world to test the level of alcohol in your blood. These tests, like the PCR test for Covid-19, are connected with laws which have a range of serious consequences for a positive result.


QUICK LOOK AT BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTS:
This discussion may seem to be overkill, but it is necessary to bring into focus the many ways that PCR tests are unlike the standard alcohol tests.

First we all know when and why our blood alcohol will be tested. If we have been driving a motor powered vehicle too fast, erratically, or have been involved in a accident we can expect such a test. We do not expect to be tested while shopping, drinking coffee or sitting at home watching TV.

Second, the tests are carried out with methods or machines which have been deliberately constructed to perform this task:

"Most police use an electronic device about the size of a walkie-talkie. You blow into a mouthpiece, and it gives an immediate reading. The most common manual test includes a balloon and a glass tube filled with yellow crystals. You blow into the balloon and release the air into the tube. The bands of crystals in the tube change color from yellow to green depending on how much alcohol is in your system."(3)

We may assume the electronic devices are calibrated regularly since their results can be challenged in court if the accused person suspects they are defective.

Third, there are other ways to detect your blood alcohol level. If there are doubts about the police test there are other, better ways to check blood alcohol levels. No police breath test is as accurate as a blood or urine test.(4)

The fourth and most obvious point is that there is absolutely no medical or scientific doubt about what alcohol is. Just because you drank beer rather than vodka, the tests have no trouble identifying the different kinds of alcohol.

Now we are ready to begin the comparison between testing for blood-alcohol levels and testing for Covid-19 with PCR tests.


WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF COVID-19 TESTING? IS IT PART OF A MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS?
How do we usually get a test from a serious Health Laboratory? We visit a doctor or a hospital, explain our problem, and if they think a test is needed to help them understand what is wrong, They order a test for us. Virtually all Covid-19 PCR tests do not happen in this way. Somebody decides that because of where we live, or where we have been, we need a test. There is usually no other medical examination.

Now countries are doing door to door testing in the way shifty sales people or religious believers have done for decades. They pressure people into having this test and people are afraid to refuse. Have you ever been afraid to reject the offer of any other medical test? What we are seeing here is a serious departure from any kind of medical investigation we have seen for 100 years. There is testing but no diagnosis and no medical assistance. If you test positive you become a new "case" of Covid-19 and you must cut yourself off from any human contact for a specified period, often two weeks. Clearly these tests have nothing to improve our health as individuals. They assume we have become a threat to others because we have or might have Covid-19. The tests are seen as an investigation related to public health.


WHAT IS A "CASE" OF COVID-19?
According to new UK legislation:

'Coronavirus' means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); 'coronavirus disease' means COVID-19 (the official designation of the disease which can be caused by coronavirus)."(5)

In the West, it’s difficult to find out what makes a “case,” ie what the definition of a "case of Covid-19" is. So far, experts have seen that while there are severe cases, the Covid-19 infection is usually mild with non-specific symptoms. And there are no trademark clinical features of COVID-19 infection. The usual clinical features for serious cases is that Covid involves an acute lack of oxygen. For reasons that are not clear, people can’t breathe.

If a PCR test is positive, you are seen as a "case" and subject to a range of new laws. However in China, much maligned for its "totalitarian" system, patients are diagnosed "‘Corona’ with CT scans and one or two positive PCR tests." The point of the CT scans is to examine the lungs of the patient. What this means is that the West has all but abandoned classical diagnostic medicine in favor of biotech, or lab result medicine. The “Corona test” is a lab test called: “CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.”

https://www.biocompare.com/12104-Equipment/10468301-qTOWER-Real-Time-PCR-Thermal-Cycler/?pda=22353|10468301_3_0|||&dfp=true
qTOWER³ Real-Time PCR Thermal Cycler from Analytik Jena shown here.

WHAT IS THE PCR TEST FOR COVID-19?
The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) was invented by Kary B. Mullis in 1984. What he developed was a formula for DNA amplification. The method is based on the concept of “reiterative exponential growth processes.” In basic terms it allows a researcher to start with a very small sample of DNA and by means of a series of cycles in which it is heated and cooled. In this way the amount of DNA increases enough so it can be studied. In effect, one starts with a small amount of DNA and from this it is possible to manufacture much more of the same thing. PCR, simply put, is a thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, making it large enough to study. Dr. Mullis wrote himself, on May 7, 2013:

“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."(6)

Here we see a very important difference between testing for blood-alcohol and testing for Covid-19. The PCR amplification technique was originally developed to create more DNA material, not to test for anything. Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics explained how a patient with Covid-19 would be dealt with using the standard policy of examination first, not testing without examination.

“You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. (7)

This shows that there are some scientists in this field who believe the current PCR test for Covid-19 is simply barking up the wrong tree. It is not fit for the purpose it is currently used for. We will see that this is not just a empty, theoretical objection to this method of testing for Covid-19. Rather it explains why the PCR test for Covid-19 infection is completely unreliable and incapable of determining if a person has or does not have such an infection. Here are six different reasons why the PCR test is no more reliable identifying a Covid-19 infection than flipping a coin: heads is positive, tails is negative.

The discussion of the reliability of PCR tests for the diagnosis of infectious diseases is not new. Decades ago this same test was used for AIDS, and its inventor, Kary Mullis, himself came to the front line arguing against PCR as diagnostic tool.(8)


1. PCR TEST DOES NOT YIELD A CLEAR 'YES' OR 'NO' ANSWER FOR COVID-19
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”(9)

Most people think of the PCR test as showing one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You have it or you don’t.

“PCR is really a manufacturing technique. 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.”(10)


Diagram of the method of duplication with two cycles.

2. IF THE NUMBER OF CYCLES IS LOW, EVERY TEST IS NEGATIVE. IF THE NUMBER OF CYCLES IS HIGH, EVERY TEST WILL BE POSITIVE
“In one paper 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.(11)

“I think if a country said, 'You know, we need to end this epidemic,' they could quietly send around a memo saying: 'We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.'"(12)

This shows that labs can manipulate how many “cases" of Covid-19 their country has.


3. REPEATED TESTING OF THE SAME PERSON DOES NOT GIVE THE SAME RESULT DAY AFTER DAY. PATIENTS TESTED IN SINGAPORE WERE GIVEN A PCR TEST EVERY DAY. MANY OF THEM CHANGED FROM TESTING POSITIVE TO TESTING NEGATIVE AND THEN BACK TO POSITIVE AGAIN.
“Another reason we know this is bogus is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by…37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”(13)

“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again. So how do you interpret this? How do you have a test if a test act is actually, you know, 100% positive for detecting infection, then the negative results must’ve been wrong? And so, one way to solve that is to move the point from 37 to say 36 or 38. You can move this, this cycle of numbers. It’s an arbitrary division up or down. But there’s no guarantee that if you did that, you wouldn’t still have the same thing. It would just, instead of going from, from 36 to undetectable and back to 36 or back to 45, it might go from 33 to undetectable to 30 or something like that. Right? So, you can’t solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. And so basically this says that the test is not detecting infection. Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”(14)


4. IN CHINA FOUR PEOPLE IN THE SAME FAMILY ALL HAD THE SAME SYMPTOMS BUT ONLY THREE TESTED POSITIVE USING THE PCR TEST. ONE WOMAN IN THE FAMILY HAD 18 NEGATIVE TESTS BUT WAS STILL DECLARED INFECTED WITH COVID-19.
There is a case in the literature of a woman who had been in contact with a suspect case of Corona (in Wuhan) they believed was the index case.

“She was important to the supposed chain of infection because of this. They tested her 18 times, different parts of the body, like nose, throat—different PCR tests. 18 different tests. And she tested negative every time. And then they—because of her epidemiological connection with the other cases, they said: “We consider her infected. So, they had 18 negative tests and they said she was infected.”(15)

“Now why was she important? Well there was only one other person who could have theoretically transmitted the virus if the original patient, outside the family was who they thought it was. But secondly, she had the same exact symptoms as everybody else. Right? So, four people in his family came down with fever and cough and headaches, fatigue and all these kinds of big symptoms. So, if she could get those symptoms without the virus, then you, you’ve got to say, well, why couldn’t everybody else’s symptoms be explained by whatever she had? I mean, maybe they, they ate some bad seafood or something and so they all got sick, but it had nothing to do with the coronavirus. But because three out of the four, tested positive, then they were, they were all considered infected and out of the same paper."(16)


5. ONE PERSON WAS TESTED 11 TIMES BUT ONLY THREE WERE POSITIVE. BUT ONLY ONE POSITIVE TEST IS NECESSARY TO PROVE A PERSON IS INFECTED. SO A POSITIVE TEST IS IMPORTANT, BUT A NEGATIVE TEST SHOWS NOTHING.

"Another interesting thing is that they did a lot of tests. The first person in the list of people tested, he was positive on three out of 11 tests. So again, they took nose and throat samples and you know, different methods and all this kind of stuff. And they got 11 separate tests and only three were positive. And of course, all you need to be considered infected is one positive test. They could test you 20 times and if you test positive once, then you’re infected. So, a positive test is meaningful. A negative test. It’s like, eh. Not so much.”(17)

Here we see a situation like this: Heads I win, tails you lose. When the government is testing you, a positive test means their laws w/r to medical emergencies applies to you. But a negative test does not get you off the hook. This is seen as a "false negative".


6. THERE IS NO "GOLD STANDARD" FOR THE PCR TEST FOR COVID-19. A "GOLD STANDARD" REQUIRES THE ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION OF AN ACTUAL VIRUS. PURIFICATION MEANS THAT THE VIRUS HAS BEEN SEPARATED FROM EVERYTHING ELSE. HOWEVER THE COVID-19 VIRUS HAS NOT BEEN PURIFIED OR ISOLATED SO THERE IS NO WAY TO TEST A PCR TEST FOR ACCURACY OR PROVING THAT EXACTLY THIS INFECTION IS WHAT CAUSES THE DISEASE AND ITS SYMPTOMS.
We have lab tests for pregnancy, but in the end there is or is not a real fetus. There is no way to say that any PCR test is 50% accurate, or 80% or 99%. You can only do this if you can identify the virus independently of the test. So how are the current PCR tests evaluated? In Australia, and probably most of the rest of the world, the labs are given a synthesized DNA to use instead:

"Complementary DNA (cDNA) synthesized from the VIDRL SARS-CoV-2 has been made available to all Public Health Laboratory Network (PHLN) member laboratories as a test positive control. Synthetic positive control material in the form of nucleic acid templates is available from WHO/European Viral Archive."(18)

In a Reply to one of my tweets lysandergrant@lysandergrant explained:

"You must extract the original RNA from purified virions that were PROVEN to be the cause of disease, along with proper controls. These steps were skipped. It's honestly just lazy 'science'."(19)

The same point has been made by Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter in their article "COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless":

LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD
"Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.

"This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.

"As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question 'How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?':

"If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
(20)

So the reliability of PCR tests can be evaluated, but not against a real virus which has been proved to cause Covid-19. In fact all we have is an unproved hypothesis that there is a real virus which causes what we call Covid-19 and we have created synthetic DNA which we believe is more or less like the real - but unproven - viral cause of Covid-19.

In some circumstances this might be called a conspiracy theory because politicians and the WHO are saying that there is a dreadful virus out there killing hundreds of thousands of people BUT THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY SHOW IT TO US OR PROVE IT CAUSES ILLNESS OR DEATH. It is really an hypothesis but if you insist on telling people this you will be locked up as insane or dangerous because you are putting so many lives at risk. Of course there is no conspiracy.


CONCLUSION
Now it is time to go back to our comparison between blood alcohol tests and the PCR test for Covid-19.

Blood alcohol tests are called for in a range of cases in which our performance in managing heavy equipment like cars or cranes must be monitored for safety and legal reasons. PCR tests are sometimes used in specific situations but are becoming regularly used almost randomly door-to-door or as people drive their cars past random check points.

Unlike the equipment used for testing blood alcohol levels, the PCR equpment was not designed primarily for testing anything. It is used for testing as blood from a wound can be used to write a message.

It is claimed there are other methods to detect the Covid-19 virus HOWEVER there is NO PROOF that what they detect is the SAME VIRUS because the alleged virus has never been isolated and properly identified. The polio virus is about 30 nm (nanometers) and can only be seen with an electron microscope. Particles of a Covid-19 virus would be even smaller.

Finally, virologists do not agree that there is any one test that can be used for identifying Covid-19 infections in the way scientists do agree that there are several quite reliable tests for blood alcohol.

Blind Freddy can see that there is very powerful political pressure behind the PCR test for Covid-19. All of the points made here about its complete unreliability are simply swept under the carpet, like the claim in the Australian that up to 150,000 people could die from this infection. This ABSURD claim has simply been forgotten while the real death toll is little more than 100.

What is the answer to our question: When is a test not a test? A test is not a test when it is really an instrument of political control, tied to the wide powers outlined in the Biosecurity Act 2015.

FOOTNOTES:

1. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-03/coronavirus-ag-flags-rarely-used-biosecurity-powers/12020034
2. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/section/1/enacted
3. https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/breath-alcohol-test#1
4. Ibid.
5. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/section/1/enacted
6. https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid. The following comments are based on Celia Farber's two-hour interview with David Crowe, a Canadian researcher with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/02/phln-guidance-on-laboratory-testing-for-sars-cov-2-the-virus-that-causes-covid-19.pdf
19. lysandergrant@lysandergrant
20. https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/


ABOUT THIS ARTICLE:
This is based largely on the article "Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?" by Celia Farber. (https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/) Her article covers much more material than I do, but my focus here is to explain in simple terms how the PCR test works. Once you understand this you can see why they are neither medical nor diagnostic. Instead they are a tyrants dream come true, providing an unchangeable reason to lock people up on the grounds of being a medical danger to human society. The Covid-19 "emergency" has opened the door to what is called Medical Martial Law, where anything can be done to anyone if they have "tested positive" to Covid-19.

"The globalists write code. They encode 'viruses' and give them a weaponized, video-game identity. In this video game, you lose all your freedoms, and must display gratitude and servitude. Viral code trumps all other forms of politics. Nothing can counter it. Especially not 'science.' The virus is also a sweeping metaphor for the spread of 'misinformation,' which means anything outside their religious doctrines, not recognizable by classical virology."
Celia Farber
Tags: all, archive, australian politics, covid
Subscribe

Recent Posts from This Journal

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments