by Dr. Eric Snyder and Dr. Amy Cerato
Test, Test, Test! Test what? We are not referring to the excessive standardized testing culture found in primary and secondary compulsory schools across the United States. That topic would be an entire book, although the inability, or should we say ability, to produce desired outcomes from the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test is eerily similar to the desired testing outcomes pushed on parents, children, and teachers today. As we rummage further into irregularities associated with this worldwide event, our interests were piqued as reports of tests and tests became more common. Why did we select these tests and adopt our current public policy in regard to testing? When did this occur? Who created the test? What does it measure? Is it reliable? Valid? Could we trust our leaders to know the science behind the test?
This chapter will focus on the “gold standard” of Covid-19 tests which are currently utilized (as of November 15,2021) by the CDC and the State of Oklahoma to assess community positivity rates of Covid-19. Is the PCR test really the gold standard? We thought that era existed pre-Nixon. Or is it more accurate to call it a federal fiat currency standard? Nixon removed the United States from the gold standard in August 1971, which resulted in the dollar being backed by–more paper. It is true the test provides substance; but is that substance worth anything? The topic of gold and silver as money versus federal reserve currency notes is also worthy of another book, and since we are discussing it briefly, the authors do recommend When Money Dies by Adam Fergusson. Order that book today as it could be a reality tomorrow.
See below a similar table/graph that was shown in Chapter 2 as we calculate case fatality rates using the equation: deaths/positive cases. The data is from Oklahoma as of November 15th, 2021.
|Oklahoma Case Fatality Rate|
|Total Cumulative Cases||655,512|
Table 1: Oklahoma Case Fatality Rate as of November 15th, 2021.
The infection fatality rate (IFR) would be even lower than this because mild cases go unreported and untested. Believe it or not, our trust in the PCR test as a diagnostic could have subsequently increased and/or decreased the numerator and denominator of the CFR equation. This is an accurate statement because:
- A cycle threshold value above 35 is not replicant competent and can result in a high rate (97%) of false-positivetests subsequently adding to the denominator (total cumulative cases). Don’t just believe us; listen to the Covid-19 honcho Dr. Fauci discuss this issue at the four-minute mark here.
- A false positive PCR can then be adequate evidence to justify the U07.1 coding for a Covid-19 death on the death certificate, adding to the numerator (deaths).
- A false negative result at a cycle threshold above 35 does not exclude infection, as false-negative results may arise if the sample is taken improperly or too early (Contaminated sample).
- A false-negative result may arise if a single-gene test were performed without taking into account viral mutations.
These false positives not only inflated and deflated the COVID-19 numbers, driving ineffective public health decisions like lock-downs, masking, and now vaccine mandates, but they were most likely the reason that the influenza numbers have been way down for the past two years as well. Remember that this EUA for the Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel only allowed patients to be tested for a SINGLE INFECTIOUS AGENT (SARS-CoV-2) in a GIVEN EMERGENCY (the Covid-19 pandemic). The EUA testing protocol was developed, or ‘primed’, to look for the presence of a nucleic acid found ONLY in the SARS-CoV-2 virus. While the RT-PCR test CAN detect flu, the EUA was only set up for SINGLE virus detection, not MULTI-ANALYTE PANELS. To test for other pathogens, another PCR test or seroprevalence testing would have to be performed.
In other words, a person getting tested for SARS-CoV-2, for example, may have had the flu with similar symptoms to Covid-19, but since the EUA PCR testing was not “primed” to pick up influenza, it failed to do so. Unfortunately, those folks who legitimately had the flu were not being tested a second time to determine the presence of influenza, and subsequently they could be falsely labeled “covid-19 positive.” For those folks that had no symptoms but were tested for work or contact tracing purposes, they presumably popped positive because of the amplification (high cycle threshold rates) used. These people may have had a little bit of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in their system and the PCR test said “positive,” but no outside physician or medical expert interpreted their results as “incorrect,” due to inappropriate amplification protocols. And just for perspective, consider the CDC list of Covid-19 symptoms and think clearly about how many other human illnesses culminate with similar symptoms?
Figure 1: CDC List of Covid-19 Symptoms. As of February 22, 2021.
Given the breadth of the symptoms, the depth of the deception seems phantasmagorical. With a single PCR test run above a 35 cycle threshold, researchers concluded that “the probability that said person is infected is <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” Knowing this, we could conclude that false positives and the wrongful narrative surrounding asymptomatic Covid-19 positive tests were simply a function of misusing the RT-PCR testing without following up with individuals to test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (more on this when we discuss vaccinations in a later chapter).
The PCR diagnostic test fails to diagnose if a person is sick – it simply tells you accurately what viruses, or fragments of a virus, are present when you tell the test what “primer” to look for; a positive test result does not always mean “infectious.” Some states are now using a Multiplex RT-PCR test that simultaneously tests for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza Types A and B. We cannot provide exact data on how many states are using this method, but we do know that on December 31, 2021, the SINGLE analyte SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test will be recalled by the FDA (see timeline below for announcement). So, theoretically, right now, a single analyte SARS-Cov-2 RT- PCR test can remain in use, which people should know when making health decisions. It is a GREAT question to ask your doctor/urgent care provider if you visit with symptoms and want to be tested for any type of virus. Ask them what test they are using and what virus it is “primed” to detect.
Wow, we’ve got a real mess on our hands and we haven’t even mentioned hot button topics like therapeutics and vaccinations. The PCR test has been used since its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted on February 4th, 2020 by the U.S. FDA. Why is everything we are using to diagnose, prevent and treat Covid-19 still under EUA? Even the newest pharmaceutical pill to treat Covid-19 from Pfizer called Plaxlovid is now under review for emergency authorization use. We wonder if Vegas has any odds on its approval because those odds would require the redefining of the word gamble. Is it a gamble to call the PCR the gold standard for viral diagnosis? If not, then the use of the test would be touted by scientists worldwide, especially the inventor of the test. Right?
Let’s type history! The late Dr. Kary Mullis, Ph.D. created the PCR in 1983 and later won the chemistry Nobel Prize in 1993 for the achievement. He was quite an eccentric individual and his knowledge of the human body and chemistry was incredible. It was a tremendous loss for citizens of the United States and the world when Dr. Mullis died in August of 2019, prior to Covid-19 impacting all of our lives. His knowledge and guidance would have been incredibly valuable as we navigate the chicanery.
In reading and watching videos about Dr. Mullis, we did find it peculiar that his relationship with Dr. Fauci was poor. This dynamic dated back to HIV/AIDS research and at one point in an interview Dr. Mullis had the following to say about Dr. Fauci.
These guys like Fauci get up and start talking and he doesn’t know anything really about anything and I would say that to his face. Nothing,” Mullis said. “The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there, you’ll know it. He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he’s in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don’t know anything about the body.
“Those guys have got an agenda which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They have a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go; they change them when they want to. And they (are smug)—like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”
What a powerful interview! We’ve already documented rule changes and flip/flops that were made directly to the American people in previous chapters but hearing Dr. Mullis articulate his personal opinion about Dr. Fauci adds weight to the narrative. It would have been incredible to listen to Dr. Mullis and Dr. Fauci debate at the University of South Carolina. This is precisely why our universities today have failed the public as they should be having open debates in a public forum to inform and educate the public about Covid-19 with numerous perspectives represented. The American people shouldn’t have to rely on Joe Rogan or Kyrie Irving to hear a murmur of an alternative view. Our doctors, physicians, and researchers should foster debate and provide a narrative to inform the public, not indoctrinate. How many have done so? If they have tried, what happens to their voice?
While we are thankful for Dr. Mullis’s development of the PCR and subsequent interviews. We should also look to the past to see if this test has been used successfully to diagnose disease. An article from the New York Times titled “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic that Wasn’t” from 2007 surfaced. The story covered a false whooping cough outbreak at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center that used, you guessed it, PCR tests to confirm positive cases. With 1000 hospital staff-tested, 142 tests returned positive. At that time, the hospital quarantined staff and took necessary precautions but after 8 weeks, secondary tests revealed these individuals were not actually infected. Dr. Trish M. Perl stated the following:
It’s a problem (referring to the PCR), we know it’s a problem,” Perl told the Times. My guess is that what happened at Dartmouth is going to become more common.”
More common as in the past two years when the entire world began using the PCR test to diagnose Covid-19? Given that the scientific community knew the reliability and validity of the test as a diagnostic was called into question in 2007, the same mistake on a worldwide scale is harebrained and criminal.
But how does the PCR test work and what does it measure? There are several great short videos to watch if you are interested in this process so that you understand what the test can and cannot be used for. We would recommend Dr. Sam Bailey out of New Zealand as her videos are fantastic at breaking down the science behind the PCR as the following process is conducted:
- Collect a sample.
- Heat the sample and DNA (separates into two strands).
- Add primers, which are short pieces of DNA to connect to the target sections of the two strands, that tell the test what virus to look for (SARS-CoV-2).
- The two strands look like a ladder cut in half—the primer builds out a few steps/
- Add polymerase which synthesizes and replicates the DNA or RNA (completing the remaining rungs of the ladder), doubling the size, it then goes through another cycle threshold. The cycle threshold (0-45 usually) is selected by the technicians and the contract they are given by the state or federal government.
To provide perspective to the reader regarding the amount of data produced, a 40 cycle threshold would assemble about 1,000 billion copies! That’s an enormous amount of data, and it is no wonder Dr. Mullis described PCR as a tree of life because the likelihood that a tiny fragment of SARS-CoV-2 would be present in 1,000 billion fragments is high. This is precisely why the Lisbon Court of Appeals Judgment established important case law (although not applicable in the United States) due to the use of the PCR test. In this particular judgment, the plaintiffs were required to be isolated due to positive tests. The individuals did not present symptoms and were not visited by a licensed physician. They had to proceed with a legal challenge using the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights to be able to depart from the nation to return to Germany.
In Part 17 of the ruling you can find the following:
ii. Indeed, the RT-PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) tests, molecular biology tests that detect the RNA of the virus, commonly used in Portugal to test and enumerate the number of infected (after nasopharyngeal collection), are performed by amplification of samples through repetitive cycles.
From the number of cycles of such amplification, the greater or lesser reliability of such tests, results.
iii. And the problem is that this reliability proves, in terms of scientific evidence (and in this field, the judge will have to rely on the knowledge of experts in the field) more than debatable.
“The amplification of samples, through repetitive cycles” is referencing the CT (cycle threshold) value of the test. We agree with the court ruling and subsequent court documentation that the greater the cycle amplification (threshold), the greater or lesser the reliability of such results. It is also supported here and here and here. This ruling should also serve as evidence that there exist court systems in the world that do understand science.
But what do Professor Stephan Bustin and other PCR experts think about all of this science? It is important that we do not ignore their efforts to clarify misconceptions about a PCR test’s ability and we encourage all of our readers to engage in this excellent article. In doing so, we actually found evidence of “science” looking at asymptomatic infection. The word “science” is in quotations because we remain bewildered regarding how we can prove asymptomatic infection as the premise of its existence should be based on proof of non-viral presence. Reread that sentence again. It is worth it. To further elucidate, when individuals test using a high cycle threshold PCR and receive a positive without “any” symptoms, this “asymptomatic” positive could be more appropriately labeled as a negative test. This is where clinician follow-up is important to ask about the presence of symptoms and then either retest at a lower cycle threshold or deem the test a “false positive,” non-infectious case and release the individual freely back into the population.
From the expert fact and fallacies document the following was written:
In the UK, and probably elsewhere, there is a concerted effort underway to undermine confidence in the tests themselves, assail the integrity of individuals advocating their use and misrepresent their role in political decision-making. The main thrusts of these assertions allege that PCR testing is not fit for purpose, is unsuitable for large scale diagnostic testing and that there is a lack of thorough quality control. Together, these arguments are used to allege that the tests are unreliable, lack internal consistency and that they were “never meant to be used on ‘well’ people with no clinical symptoms.” Without any credible evidence, this is then used to intimate that governments have been negligent in adopting a policy of implementing PCR-based tests. These claimants insinuate that inappropriate PCR testing has prompted unnecessary lockdowns, with untold adverse economic and mental health consequences, and that the use of testing data to institute mass vaccination drives is wrong.”
Without credible evidence? Really? We return to linguistics and the importance of word choice. It is a fact that the PCR test is a very valid test when it is attempting to identify the presence of a single gene of a viral load or fragment of a load in the body. But the test is NOT reliable when the cycle thresholds are amplified to a level that will show the tiniest of viral fragments that are present in most human bodies. We could not agree more with Dr. Bustin et al when they wrote the following:
Certainly, the label “gold standard” is ill-advised, as not only are there numerous different assays, protocols, reagents, instruments and result analysis methods in use, but there are currently no certified quantification standards, RNA extraction and inhibition controls, or standardised reporting procedures.”
So are the experts saying that the reliability and validity of these tests can be questioned given we do not have certified quantification standards, RNA extraction, and inhibition controls, or standardized reporting procedures? That sentence alone and the listing of each of those variables coupled with the known false positive and negative potential should result in scientists questioning the tests. When the New York Times reporter interviewed University of California, Riverside virologist Juliet Morrison, in August of 2021, the following quote was provided
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30-35.”
According to the New York Times, a cycle threshold set at 40 would result in 90% of the samples returning with a positive result. When analyzing these same samples at a CT of 30, that 90% would produce a negative result. But what about the likelihood of a false negative? Dr. Bustin and colleagues reported the following:
Consequently, inconsistent pre-test workflows can result in variable sample make-up, with inappropriate handling of samples resulting in no detectable target being present and the RT-qPCR returning a negative result . False-negative results, which change over the course of an infection , are problematic because they not only lead to an underestimate of COVID-19 incidence but, perhaps more acutely, will lead to infectious individuals remaining as a source of infection in the community and undermine the effectiveness of infection control measures.
Logically, individuals could argue it is safer to run a cycle threshold at a higher rate to produce false positives as that would result in a healthy person quarantining rather than a sick person having a false negative and going out into the community. While we can understand the rationale, when we extrapolate that mindset to our entire world’s population, the outcomes are disastrous to not only the human psyche but also the stabilization of our cultures. Consider these psychology implications below:
- From April to October 2020, U.S. hospitals saw a 31% increase in 12- to 17-year-old kids seeking help for their mental health, and a 24% increase for kids ages 5 to 11.
- Among a cohort of 432,302 people aged 2-19 years, the rate of body mass index (BMI) increase roughly doubled during the pandemic compared with the period preceding it. The greatest increases were seen in children aged 6-11 and in those already overweight before the pandemic.
- The Lancet published on October 8th, 2021 a study that found that rates of depression have increased by 53.2 million individuals within the nations included in the study. This resulted in a 27% increase in depression. As far as anxiety, an additional 73.2 million cases resulted in a 25% increase.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found emergency department visits for suspected suicide attempts during February and March of 2021 were more than 50% higher for teen girls compared to 2019, and more than 4% higher for boys.
While not an exhaustive list by any means, we should also look at how the use of high cycle threshold PCR tests has destabilized the economy.
- The consumer price index (CPI) surged 6.2% from a year ago in October, the most since December 1990. There are many variables (housing) that are not included in the CPI so the accuracy of this number could be well above 10%.
- Current US debt has soared to 29 trillion, from 23.4 trillion in 2020.
- The supply chain and hoarding of supplies continue.
- U.S small business closures were extensive across the country.
As is the case with any public policy, there are always intended and unintended consequences that result from decision-making. The following timeline below provides additional information on how we adopted the PCR with warnings from experts about its inaccuracies.
Timeline of PCR Testing
Since March of 2020, our lockdowns and mandated measures in the USA have been based on the number of cases and death rates. Our televisions screens and phones constantly remind us that Covid-19 is always present. To test the presence of SARS-CoV-2 the PCR has been used to identify “positive” patients. A positive test result was then often equated to “infectious” as individuals were asked to quarantine and follow CDC protocols for contact tracing.
January 9, 2020
The CDC started screening at 3 US airports: JFK airport, San Francisco, and Los Angeles for coughing, difficulty breathing, and temperature. No swab testing yet or PCR is used.
January 22, 2020
Christian Drosten, Germany’s Dr. Fauci and advisor to the German government, co-develops a Covid-19 PCR test, which was the first to be “accepted” but not validated by the World Health Organization (WHO). They did not have virus material available to test. The work by Corman-Drosten, et al from January 2020 confirms that viral material was not available. It is important to have a sample of the live virus in order to develop a PCR test attempting to identify particles or fragments of that virus. A rebuttal to the science of Corman-Drosten, et al. is here.
January 31, 2020
Public health emergency declared under the public health service act and Secretary Azar in the United States.
February 4, 2020
Within the CDC’s 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. If you review page 26, you can see the “reps” are set to 45 (this is the threshold cycle provided to labs in the United States). The document’s most recent update was 7/21/2021.
Within the BioinGentech manual, you will see the following which is definitive evidence that cycle thresholds above 40 are not appropriate.
Figure 2:BioinGentech Manual of cycle threshold (CT) values.
March 3, 2020
A Singapore study where PCR testing was carried out almost daily on 18 patients is published. The majority of patients went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once. One patient experienced this five times using the PCR tests.
March 16, 2020
World Health Organization Statement on Covid-19- Encourages Expansive Testing- shipping 1.5 million tests worldwide: See Transcript and remember Test, Test, Test.
March 22, 2020
Letter to the World Health Organization and Dr. Fauci. Please note that research had been done prior to showing RT-PCR test issues as indicated by the Singapore study. This was especially relevant if we knew the tests were run at cycle thresholds that are not reliable or were done with contaminated sampling techniques.
March 26, 2020
Our findings indicate that RT-PCR test results of pharyngeal swab specimens were variable and potentially unstable, and it should be considered as only one indicator for a potential diagnosis, treatment, isolation, recovery/discharge, and transferring for hospitalized patients clinically diagnosed with COVID-19.
May 12, 2020
A publication by Dr. Watson from Bristol University in The British Medical Journal titled “interpreting a Covid-19 Test result” found that there is a“lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
October 5, 2020
Kansas reports spinning RT-PCR Tests at 42 cycles. Was this similar in Oklahoma?
November 13, 2020
CDC updates its FAQS section to include info on cycle threshold values. Did they know the change was coming?
December 7, 2020
World Health Organization instructs labs around the world to use lower cycle thresholds(CT values) for PCR tests, as values over 35 could produce false positives.
December 10, 2020
This research study included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of the evidence).
January 7, 2021
SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus PCR Ct cutoff values adjusted per CDC announcement; many states nationwide adjusted their cycles threshold from above 40 into the 30’s. Subsequently, case rates fell and were correlated with the release of vaccinations. Proof of adjustment to threshold cycles in Kansas – Until January 7ththe state was spinning the cycles at 42 and reduced to 35.
What were they running the cycle threshold at in Oklahoma? Below are different PCR test manuals from various companies which reveal the issue with running a cycle threshold above a 35.
- Quest Diagnostics– A testing company was running PCR tests at 40 CT.
- LabCorp at 38. – A testing company granted EUA to run PCR tests at 38 CT
- Altona Diagnostics– Page 5 indicates very clearly the test was developed for research use and not diagnostic?
Figure 3: John Hopkins University CSSE Covid-19 Data showing the change in PCR cycle threshold date and subsequent case rate history.
January 13, 2021
The World Health Organization states that a single positive PCR test should not be used for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. They also suggest any “asymptomatic” positive tests be repeated. It is clear that the WHO knew this information months ago as scientists were telling them on March 22, 2020—why wait?
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed the status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”
February 28, 2021
An article in Zerohedge reports on the World Health Organization memo’s from December 7th and January 13th and concludes the following: “What we’re seeing is a decline in perfectly healthy people being labelled “covid cases” based on a false positive from an unreliable testing process.” This is because the WHO recommended the cycle threshold change and the CDC followed the course on January 7th. The issue is, the cycle threshold remains too high to obtain reliable results.
April of 2021
Even more concerning was when the CDC put in place a tiered system of testing with guidance for determining those infected post-vaccination by April 2021. Thankfully this was reported by New+Rescue as many Americans missed this critical change and the CDC subsequently removed the document from its website.
“Clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28.” In doing so, the CDC admits there exists an inverse relationship to viral load and contagion and the number of cycles necessary to detect the virus. A lower number of cycles necessary to detect the virus results in a higher viral load presence. A higher number of cycles results in a lower viral load presence. This behavior directly reduced the likelihood of a positive test from a “vaccinated” individual. Meanwhile, the unvaccinated were run at federally recommended levels of 35 or above, subsequently increasing their likelihood of a positive result.
As if the masks were enough, we now have concrete evidence the CDC deliberately attempted to hide vaccination breakthrough infection. While the deceit is heinous, the question remains, will they be able to continue to block evidence of breakthrough infections as we enter into December of 2021?
June 16, 2021
As of June 16, 2021, the CDC reports new tests are called Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs). They include RT-PCR tests, just to be clear.
June 30, 2021
What about Pooled testing? How many of us even knew about this?
June 30, 2021 – CDC update on Pooled Sampling of Covid-19
According to the CDC pool testing or pooled testing means “combining the same type of specimen from several people and conducting one NAAT laboratory test on the combined pool of specimens to detect SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Pooled tests that return positive results will require each specimen in the pool to be retested individually to determine which individual(s) are positive.
Yes, you read that correctly. In order to expedite return times and efficiency, multiple PCR test samples were combined and run. If a positive result occurs, all individuals in the sample are then contacted and required to test again. While we understand efficiency, the list of issues associated with this form of testing protocol is multifarious. Given that money is always a “go-to” topic, how does a state contract with a private firm or hospital to “pool test.” Do you charge per person or per pool?
From the CDC “A study by the Nebraska Public Health Laboratory external icon found that nucleic acid tests for SARS-CoV-2 reliably returned a positive result when one positive specimen was mixed with four negatives and could reduce the number of tests needed by >50% in certain scenarios (such as a COVID-19 incidence of 5%). However, as the incidence of COVID-19 increases, the cost savings of a pooling strategy decreases because more pooled tests will return positive results and those specimens will need to be retested individually to determine which individual(s) are positive.”
So as we enter into our next spike in the United States (November 2021 into December 2021), let us hope that pooled sampling is used sparingly.
July 17, 2021
Dr. Fauci Admits that “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more, the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule,” Fauci said at roughly the four-minute mark of this video. ‘Replication competent’ means particles capable of infecting cells and replicating to produce additional infectious particles.
July 21, 2021
After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives. See the table below for evidence.
Figure 4: CDC Lap Alert withdrawing the use of 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.
If you want to learn more about other tests, visit the FDA website for a list of authorized COVID-19 diagnostic methods. For a summary of the performance of FDA-authorized molecular methods with an FDA reference panel, visit this page. With this press release, the CDC admitted, a person getting tested for SARS-CoV-2, for example, may have had the flu with similar symptoms to Covid, but since the EUA PCR testing was not “primed” to pick up influenza, it didn’t.
August 4th, 2021
In perfect conjunction with the return to school, the 7-day average of new tests in the United States is now just over 584,000 per day, down from over 1.5 million per day six months ago and about 900,000 per day a year ago, according to data from the US Department of Health and Human Services.
According to CNN “Dr. Patrick Godbey, president of the College of American Pathologists, agreed that there is a need for greater testing. “I think more testing is a good thing, for many reasons. One of the important things to remember is, first of all, bad data is worse than no data at all,” Godbey told CNN.
As data analysts, a statement like the one above is the exact reason we are in this chaos. Would it not have been more advantageous to conduct screenings like we were on January 9th, 2020 for fever, coughing, and difficulty breathing. At least these “tests” would not have resulted in false positives and negative warnings of illness.
August 22, 2021:
Rice University in Houston delayed in-person classes for two weeks because they thought they had a large Covid-19 positive rate in the students but found anomalies in the testing. They retested dozens of students and “all but one of those have turned out to be negative.” Rice began investigating when it realized over 90% of the positive infections came from a single test provider and most of those cases involved people who reported no symptoms or had been fully vaccinated. It turned out that the provider had changed its testing protocol without the university’s knowledge. What is the actual testing protocol now that the CDC recalled using PCR testing due to its inaccuracies and ability to skew the results depending on how many cycles are used?
November 18, 2021
Confirmation was received that the State of Oklahoma continues to run PCR tests at a cycle threshold of 37. Why would the state of Oklahoma still be using a 37-cycle threshold value knowing that a true infection rate versus detection rate is of critical importance!
Do you now realize the concerns associated with utilizing this type of testing and how employing inappropriate cycle thresholds can swing the caseload up or down 90%? Why was this knowledge ignored? Why did the US use cycle thresholds above 40 in all of 2020? Why did the CDC wait to publicly recall the tests on July 27, 2021with a compliance date of removal not until December 31, 2021?
Take a moment and reflect on the current narrative from our largest media conglomerates and our most trusted medical associations and institutions. For 21 months we have been told to test, test, test, with the “gold standard” even though this same test has been recalled effective December 31, 2021. Why wait when the announcement was made on July 21, 2021? That’s like recalling the lettuce with salmonella from the grocery store a few months after knowing about the outbreak. The damage would already be done.
Dr. Mullis, past historical events (whooping cough outbreak at Dartmouth Hospital), and peer-reviewed research provided the public with plenty of warning regarding both false positives and false negatives associated with the test. But how does this information reach the public when big tech and big media collude to create one narrative embedded in fear?
At this point, it is clear the level of malevolence continues to reach new heights with each chapter we write. Does anyone else find it ironic that the CDC discovered the science of PCR to minimize breakthrough infections of the vaccinated by lowering the threshold to 28 in April of 2021? This fact perpetuates the continuation of the masked versus unmasked, vaccinated versus unvaccinated narrative. They needlessly ignored independent researchers’ concerns with PCR tests as early as March of 2020 and it is our job as “we the people” to unite and hold these individuals accountable. The truth is:
- Any PCR test run above a 35 threshold cycle should be discarded, or at a minimum repeated, at a lower threshold cycle to confirm viral presence.
- This test should not be used as a diagnostic tool but rather an analytical tool for doctors and physicians to begin treatment as early therapeutics are available and essential.
- The reliability of the PCR test is high when identifying the presence of a viral load, but the cycle threshold impacts the reliability because the test can detect micro fragments of viruses that provide no relevant clinical data.
- The rationale to use PCR testing with a high cycle threshold resulted in excessive quarantine and isolation of healthy individuals, subsequently impacting mental health and all facets of our society.
- The timeline of PCR use reveals few changes to processes and procedures over the course of 21 months unless those changes support the common narrative to vaccinate-at-all-costs.
The PCR is not gold; it is more of a gilded copper alloy and we will never regain our freedom and liberty if we continue to support the narrative currently being perpetrated on the American people and the world. We need to shift from “their” pandemic to “our” endemic, where we establish appropriate protocols and do not permit those in power to reinvent the narrative any way they choose. By not complying with a PCR test unless it is adjusted to appropriate threshold cycles, and used as an analytical data point, we begin to shift the narrative and provide more accurate information. By requesting a seroprevalence test to identify infection, superior data is collected. Individuals should not accept baseless testing in an effort to be reasonable as we then are compromising the science to meet in the middle. In doing so, we will see more of our friends and family members suffering and injured. The only way to win this rigged game is by changing the rules to actually provide an advantage to We the People. This is why educating the population on early protocols and therapeutics are essential to virtually eliminate hospitalizations and death from the virus. Stay tuned! Therapeutics is the topic of our very next chapter.
Questions to Consider
- What threshold cycle do our state, federal, county, and private testing sites utilize to confirm “positive” SARS-Cov-2?
- How much money is associated with the perpetual use of these tests and who is footing the bill?
- Will a shift, in testing protocols, after December 31, 2021, to use a higher throughput and multiplex assays with biotinylated primers truly isolate a purified version of the virus?
- How many individuals were really “asymptomatic” from past PCR testing that produced false positives and false negatives?
“What options does one have when the game of life is rigged? One option: create a new game, with new rules and play to win.” – Dr. Eric Snyder