The Ignorance And Deception Surrounding PCR Tests For COVID-19

Wikimedia Commons, Madprime
Please Share This Story!
Arguing the science of PCR testing for COVID seems pointless these days because politicians, autocrats and Technocrats have blown the whole topic into a full-blown ‘casedemic’ that is driven by irrational fears and in some cases, just plain lust for power. ‚ĀÉ TN Editor

Lost in this whole pandemic hysteria are some key considerations that when carefully analyzed place the whole COVID-19 narrative in a highly questionable light.  The gatekeepers of information dissimulation are manufacturing consent at an alarming rate, but their fatigue is setting in, and their masks are falling off.  What better, albeit unlikely, source to go for some much needed illumination than the New York Times?

During a considerably quieter time, back in 2007, the New York Times featured a very interesting expos√© on molecular diagnostic testing ‚ÄĒ specifically, the inadequacy of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test in achieving reliable results.¬†¬†The most significant concern highlighted in the Times report is how molecular tests, most notably the PCR, are highly sensitive and prone to false positives.¬†¬†At the center of the controversy was a potential outbreak in a hospital in New Hampshire that proved to be nothing more than ‚Äúordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.‚Ä̬†¬†Unfortunately, the results wroughseemsby the PCR told a different story.

Thankfully, a faux epidemic was avoided but not before thousands of workers were furloughed and given antibiotics and¬†ultimately a vaccine, and hospital beds (including some in intensive care) were taken out of commission.¬†¬†Eight months later, what was thought to be an epidemic was deemed a non-malicious hoax.¬†¬†The culprit?¬†¬†According to ‚Äúepidemiologists and infectious disease specialists ‚Ķ too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test .. led them astray.‚Ä̬†¬†At the time, such tests were ‚Äúcoming into increasing use‚ÄĚ as maybe ‚Äúthe only way to get a quick answer in diagnosing diseases like ‚Ķ SARS, and deciding whether an epidemic is under way.‚ÄĚ

Nevertheless, today, the PCR test is considered the gold standard of molecular diagnostics, most notably in the diagnosis of COVID-19.  However, a closer analysis reveals that the PCR has actually been pretty spotty and that false positives abound.  Thankfully, the New York Times is once again on the case.

‚ÄúYour Coronavirus Test Is Positive; Maybe It Shouldn‚Äôt Be,‚ÄĚ according to NYT reporter Apoorva Mandavilli.¬†¬†Essentially, positive results are getting tossed around way too frequently.¬†¬†Rather, they should probably be reserved for individuals with ‚Äúgreater viral load.‚Ä̬†¬†So how have they‚Äôve been doing it all this time you ask?

‚ÄúThe PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample . .. the more likely the patient is to be contagious.‚ÄĚ

Unfortunately, the ‚Äúcycle threshold‚ÄĚ has been ramped up.¬†¬†What happens when it‚Äôs ramped up?¬†¬†Basically, ‚Äúhuge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus‚ÄĚ are deemed infected.¬†¬†However, the severity of the infection is never quantified, which essentially amounts to a false positive.¬†¬†Their level of contagion is essentially nil.

How are they determining the cycle threshold?¬†¬†If I didn‚Äôt suspect that it was based on maximizing the amount of ‚Äúcases,‚ÄĚ I would find the determination pretty arbitrary.¬†¬†More than a few of the professionals on record for Times report appear pretty perplexed on this vital detail which is essentially driving ‚Äúclinical diagnostics, for public health and policy decision-making.‚Ä̬†¬†Considering all that‚Äôs at stake and everything that hinges on positive vs negative case tallies, it‚Äôs outrageous that these tests would be tweaked in a way that would inflate the positive rate totals and percentages.¬†¬†According to one virologist,¬†‚ÄĚany test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive.‚Ä̬†¬†She went on to to say, ‚ÄúI‚Äôm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive.‚ÄĚ

Personally, I think the science is just about settled on COVID-19.  The conclusion?  We’ve been duped!

Read full story here…

About the Author

Patrick Wood
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sapere Audete


“I do not mince my words to say that a Holocaust is being prepared here in a whole new dimension. The world is currently being transformed into a global concentration camp.

Please use the translation function if necessary.

Last edited 11 months ago by Sapere Audete

Yes, many have been duped. I for one never bought into the whole scamdemic from the start. Funny nobody seems to notice no flu deaths reported in 2020, hmmmm wonder why? Well, not really they just called it covid instead to instill panic and control of the sheeple. Went to vote in person on Tuesday, I was surprised to see hundreds of voters already in line 15 minutes before the polls opened, what was even scarier is every last one of them was masked except me. I kid you not, I was floored. Not one unmasked person! Yet, I will… Read more »