The real reason for the misuse of
Why WHO, after many months allowing
it, finally admits PCR tests create false positives
guest document by Kit Knightly
INTRODUCTION (by The M+G+R Foundation)
Almost since the beginning of the Coronavirus Campaign (*1), much has been written
about the misuse of PCR tests to diagnose and account for cases of
Covid-19. Malpractice on the use of PCR tests has been
not only approved, but even promoted and dictated by civil and health
authorities around the world.
PCR tests are a laboratory tool that deceptively and for many months
has been and still are the main source of official Covid-19 infection
figures. These tests,
by their own inventor, the Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis, are not a tool that by itself can
provide a clinical diagnosis. And, in any case, there are conditions
of use that must be respected and that have been systematically
ignored for the Covid-19 Campaign.
By the grace of God, we have come across what we
consider to be the best article we have read in many months explaining
in a summarized and comprehensible way for the public, the deception
behind the malpractice in relation to such tests plus the reason why WHO (World
Health Organization) finally decided to say this is wrong.
Through the links provided by the author (here listed as footnotes),
although most of them point to other articles at the OffGuardian's site, the diligent
reader who so desires will be able to reach other external sources that
support the information provided by Kit Knightly in his excellent
article, originally published in off-guardian.org (*2)
(finally) admits PCR tests create false positives
Warnings concerning high CT value of
tests are months too late… so why
are they appearing now?
The potential explanation is
The World Health Organization released a guidance memo on December
14th, warning that high cycle
thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives. (1)
While this information is accurate, it has also been available for
months, so we must ask: why are they reporting it now? Is it to make it
appear the vaccine works?
The "gold standard" Sars-Cov-2 tests are based on polymerase chain
reaction (PCR). PCR works by taking nucleotides - tiny fragments of DNA
or RNA - and replicating them until they become something large enough
to identify. The replication is done in cycles, with each cycle
doubling the amount of genetic material. The number of cycles it takes
to produce something identifiable is known as the "cycle threshold" or
"CT value". The higher the CT value, the less likely you are to be
detecting anything significant.
This new WHO memo states that using a high CT value to test for the
presence of Sars-Cov-2 will result in false-positive results.
To quote their own words [author emphasis]:
of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual
adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for
any background noise which may lead
to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being
interpreted as a positive result."
They go on to explain [again, author emphasis]:
design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of
circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to
detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when
specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were
required to detect virus. In some
circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual
presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain."
Of course, none of this is news to
anyone who has been paying
attention. That PCR tests were easily manipulated and
highly inaccurate has been one of the oft-repeated battle cries of
those of us opposing the "pandemic" narrative, and the policies it's
being used to sell.
Many articles (2)
have been written about
it, by many experts in the field, medical
and other researchers (4).
It's been commonly
available knowledge, for months now, that any test using a CT value
over 35 is potentially meaningless.
Dr Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR process,
was clear that it wasn't meant as a
diagnostic tool (5),
"with PCR, if you do it
well, you can
find almost anything in anybody."
And, commenting on cycle thresholds, once said:
you have to go more than 40 cycles
to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with
The MIQE guidelines for PCR use
values higher than 40 are suspect
because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be
This has all been public knowledge since the beginning of the lockdown.
The Australian government's own
website admitted the tests were flawed (7), and a court in Portugal
ruled they were not fit for purpose
Even Dr Anthony Fauci has publicly
that a cycle threshold over
35 is going to be detecting "dead nucleotides", not a living virus.
Despite all this, it is known that
many labs around the world have been
using PCR tests with CT values over 35, even into the low 40s.
So why has the WHO finally decided to
say this is wrong? What reason
could they have for finally choosing to recognise this simple reality?
The answer to that is potentially shockingly cynical: We have a vaccine now. We don't need false
Notionally, the system has produced its miracle cure. So, after
everyone has been vaccinated, all the PCR tests being done will be done
"under the new WHO guidelines",
and running only 25-30 cycles instead of 35+.
Lo and behold, the number of "positive
cases" will plummet, and we'll
have confirmation that our miracle vaccine works.
After months of flooding the data pool with false positives,
miscounting deaths "by accident"
"Covid19 related death" to every other
death certificate (11)
… they can stop. The create-a-pandemic
turned down to zero again.
…as long as we all do as we're told. Any signs of dissent - masses of
people refusing the vaccine, for example - and the CT value can start
to climb again, and they bring back
their magical disease (13).
(*1) The Coronavirus Campaign - Index of documents
in the domain of The M+G+R Foundation
originally published at off-guardian.org (19 Dec
2020) - Copyright 2020 by OffGuardian.
We have respected the text in its entirety. The only changes are in
format, including our highlighting in bold/italics.
World Health Organization warns that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests
will result in false positives (who.int - 7 Dec 2020)
of articles at off-guardian.org about PCR tests
PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless (off-guardian.org - 27 Jun
COVID-19 Testing Made the Problem Worse? (off-guardian.org - 15 Apr
Inventor: "It doesn't tell you that you are sick" (off-guardian.org
- 5 Oct 2020)
guidelines for PCR use (file in PDF format) (2009, American
Association for Clinical Chemistry)
own website admitted the tests were flawed (off-guardian.org - 5
Court Rules PCR Tests "Unreliable" & Quarantines "Unlawful"
(off-guardian.org - 20 Nov 2020)
Fauci publicly admitted that a cycle threshold over 35 is not going to
detect a living virus (twitter.com - 11 Nov 2020)
gov't (finally) admits Covid statistics are inaccurate
(off-guardian.org - 17 Jul 2020)
Death Figures "A Substantial Over-Estimate" (off-guardian.org - 5
- Evidence Of Global Fraud (off-guardian.org - 17 Nov 2020)
Steps to Create Your Own Pandemic (off-guardian.org - 17 Sep 2020)
© Copyright 2020 of the main article by OffGuardian (December 19th,
Disclaimer: OffGuardian is not affiliated nor
any way with The M+G+R Foundation.
The publication of this article in our domain does not imply a
recommendation for all the content found on their site. Still, we find
in their site many well researched and well written articles on the
Published in this site on June
24th, 2021 - Solemnity of John the Baptist
Us and Frequently
Index of Documents Regarding The Covid-19 Scam