22 Scientists Debunked the Science behind PCR test accuracy

RT Journalist Peter Andrews, Irish science journalist and writer based in London has been following an astonishing review conducted by a group of 22 senior scientists on a paper on which most Covid testing is based. The PCR testing supremacy under which we all now live has received another crushing blow. A peer review from a group of 22 international experts has found 10 “major flaws” in the main protocol for such tests. It comprehensively debunked the science behind the Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique to detect Covid, finding 10 fatal flaws, including major failings in the operating procedure and potential conflicts of interest among its authors.

Among the fatal flaws that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:

is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design

is enormously variable

cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments

has no positive or negative controls

has no standard operating procedure

does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed

The team behind the review demanded that Eurosurveillance, the journal that published the original research, retract it at once, as in their view it clearly failed to meet proper standards. This is of vital importance because the Corman-Drosten paper laid the path for mass PCR testing as the main source of data on the coronavirus. Almost all case numbers, infection rates and even deaths attributed to Covid are based on PCR tests (and all the attendant lockdowns and restrictions on people), and a huge amount of them use the method set out in the Corman-Drosten paper.

Taking the government to court
It is clear that the wars over PCR tests are hotting up, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. A new organisation in the UK, calling itself PCR Claims, has been set up to challenge in the courts the British government’s handling of PCR testing for Covid-19.

The organisation describes itself as a pro bono network of lawyers, life scientists, and business advisers led by Jo Rogers, a lawyer who runs Navistar Legal.

Rogers told RT.com: “The intention is to expose the controversy of the inappropriate use of PCR in the context of pillar 2 community testing and private sector lighthouse labs.

“PCR was not designed for mass testing because of the sensitivity and risk of contamination. There are serious flaws in many of the protocols employed, which were hurriedly put together, some without peer review. The operational false positive rate is unknown and therefore every positive test could be false, unless accompanied by clinical examination.”

As an example of errors with PCR, the group points to a recent case from Cambridge University. “Our first priority is to gather evidence of the harms from restrictions to life whose policies were driven by PCR test modelling and/or ‘case’ results,” Rogers said. “We believe the cases are a pseudo epidemic, as seen in other places around the world using PCR testing.

 

Source RT

15 Comments

  1. Officially its a flu strain, nothing more. “I have a PhD in virology and immunology. I’m a clinical lab scientist and have tested 1500 “supposed” positive Covid 19 samples collected here in S. California. When my lab team and I did the testing through Koch’s postulates and observation under a SEM (scanning electron microscope), we found NO Covid in any of the 1500 samples. What we found was that all of the 1500 samples were mostly Influenza A and some were influenza B, but not a single case of Covid, and we did not use the B.S. PCR test. We then sent the remainder of the samples to Stanford, Cornell, and a few of the University of California labs and they found the same results as we did, NO COVID. They found influenza A and B. All of us then spoke to the CDC and asked for viable samples of COVID, which CDC said they could not provide as they did not have any samples. “We have now come to the firm conclusion through all our research and lab work, that the COVID 19 was imaginary and fictitious. The flu was called Covid and most of the 225,000 dead were dead through co-morbidities such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, emphysema etc. and they then got the flu which further weakened their immune system and they died. I have yet to find a single viable sample of Covid 19 to work with. “We at the 7 universities that did the lab tests on these 1500 samples are now suing the CDC for Covid 19 fraud. the CDC has yet to send us a single viable, isolated and purifed sample of Covid 19. If they can’t or won’t send us a viable sample, I say there is no Covid 19, it is fictitious. The four research papers that do describe the genomic extracts of the Covid 19 virus never were successful in isolating and purifying the samples. All the four papers written on Covid 19 only describe small bits of RNA which were only 37 to 40 base pairs long which is NOT A VIRUS. A viral genome is typically 30,000 to 40,000 base pairs. With as bad as Covid is supposed to be all over the place, how come no one in any lab world wide has ever isolated and purified this virus in its entirety? That’s because they’ve never really found the virus, all they’ve ever found was small pieces of RNA which were never identified as the virus anyway. “So what we’re dealing with is just another flu strain like every year, COVID 19 does not exist and is fictitious. I believe China and the globalists orchestrated this COVID hoax (the flu disguised as a novel virus) to bring in global tyranny and a worldwide police totalitarian surveillance state, and this plot included massive election fraud.” #Hoax #CovidIsAScam #Scam #Truth #WakeUp #YeahImGonnaFuckingPostIt. https://joerizoliopinions.onlinegroups.net/groups/joe-rizoliopinions/messages/topic/

    https://johnscottconsciousness.com/

    https://gbdeclaration.org/

    1. Hi. I’m 120% in support of your work! Really really appreciate it!! Fake fact checkers debunked the claim of the “virus not isolated”, and CDC has this article to support it. I’m no expert on this so I have no clue what the article talks about… Is this 1 of the 4 you mentioned that talks about bits of Covid RNA? I want to debunk the fact checkers!!
      https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

      1. Not seen this one myself. I’ve a friend who is retired now, he used to study genetics and used PCR tests and he told me the other day, that they should not cycle above 11 cycles, anything that goes higher produces distorted and incorrect results. This journal article doesn’t even document how many cycles the samples are amplifying the alleged virus material to, the other point is what ever sample you take, if you amplify it enough cycles and they usually amplify it above 25, 35, some to 65 cycles!!! In real science, we were taught, every test should have a golden mean or error margin, that is why the PCR tests are not advisable since they have no way of checking the error margin but they know that it produces a lot of false positives the higher you amplify the cycles beyond and above 11 cycles. All producing totally distorted results, you can only guess if part of the material you are looking at is part of a particular virus. Bare in mind that we have a number of corona viruses that all have lab based animal origins mixed in to show that they have been used in gain-to-function research, for example the current one shows connections with prior lab based 1HN1 and MERS, the SCH004 was an expensive gain-to-function project funded by Fauci and Bill Gates over the years from the Obama administration.
        Ingredients
        • SARs 1.0 backbone
        • MERs mechanism
        of entry
        • H5N1 : HA glycoprotein via Furin
        • SCH004 Bat to Human entry

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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